Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before ree of the Clock.

The Clerk at the Table informed the ouse of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded the Table and, after Prayers, took the chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND BURMA ACTS, 1935 (INSTRUCTIONS TO GOVERNORS).

The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSE-HOLD (Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:—

I have received your Addresses praying Me to issue Instructions to Governors of Governor's Provinces in India and to the Governor of Burma in the form of the respective Drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

GOVERNMENTS OF INDIA AND BURMA ACTS, 1935 (ORDERS).

THE COMPTROLLER of the HOUSE-HOLD reported His Majesty's Answer, as follweth:—

I have received your Addresses praying that the Governments of India (Federal Court) Order, 1936; the Government of India (Provincial Legislatures) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936; the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) Order, 1936; the Governments of India (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936; the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) Order, 1936; the Government of India (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936; the Government of Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, 1936; the Government of India (Commencement and Transitory Provisions) (No.2) Order, 1936; the Government of India (Defence Appointments) Order, 1936; the Government of Burma (Defence Appoint-

ments) Order, 1936; the Government of India (Federal Legislature Amendment) Order, 1936; and the Government of Burma (Legislature) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, 1936; be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House but subject, in the case of the Provincial Legislatures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order, the Family Pension Funds Order, and the Burma (Audit and Accounts) Order, to the amendments approved by your House.

I will comply with your request.

MEMBERS SWORN.

Several Members took and subscribed the Oath or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Earsdon Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MEMBERSHIP CONTRIBUTIONS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of countries that have not paid their membership contributions to the League of Nations for the present year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Contributions from States Members of the League of Nations are paid, sometimes in one lump sum and sometimes in instalments, in the course of the League financial year which ends on 31st December. I will in due course obtain a statement of the number of countries whose contributions are wholly or partly unpaid on that date, and will communicate it to the hon. Member.

REFORM.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government were in consultation with the New Zealand Government with reference to the latter's memorandum on


the reform of the League of Nations, and is in agreement therewith; and in particular, whether the British Government will support the New Zealand proposal for the creation of an international force under the control of the League, or the allocation to the League of a definite proportion of the armed forces of its members, land, sea, and ail, up to the extent desired?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were informed by His Majesty's Government in New Zealand of the latter's intention to make their contribution to the League's work of studying the application of the principles of the Covenant by communicating to the Secretary-General a memorandum setting forth their views. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were not consulted regarding the terms of this memorandum. While they are in agreement with certain of the principles enunciated therein they note that in communicating the memorandum to the Secretary-General His Majesty's Government in New Zealand stated that in the event of their proposals being generally regarded as not immediately practicable they would not demur to the consideration of progress by stages or indeed of alternative proposals. In answer to the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom do not consider these proposals practicable at the present time.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that there is a difference of opinion in the British Commonwealth of Nations as to League of Nations policy, and would it not be better by consultation to arrive at an agreed policy?

Mr. EDEN: As I have explained, there are any number of different views about the future of the Covenant within the British Commonwealth just as there are among hon. Members.

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to the declaration made by the Committee of Twelve members of the Council of the League of Nations on 16th February, 1932, to the effect that no infringement of the territorial integrity and no change in the political independence of any member of the League brought

about in disregard of Article 10 of Covenant ought to be recognised as vaand effectual by the members of League; and whether the principle texpressed will guide their action wiregard to Abyssinia?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Governmeadhere to the principle enunciated in the declaration referred to by the hon. Meber which was made in connection wit the particular case of the Sino-Japanesdispute. But in its application to an case His Majesty's Government must bentitled to take account of the facts othe situation and of the necessity—whethe protection of British interests is involved—of dealing with the actual authorities on the spot. Any such action on their part does not imply approval of the methods by which the situation was brought about.

Miss RATHBONE: If Addis Ababa were in fact deprived of its Legation, would not that mean a de facto if not a de jure change in the status of Abyssinia?

Mr. EDEN: I should like to see that question on the Order Paper. The point that we want to make is that we must, in Manchuria and elsewhere, enter into such negotiations with the authorities as are necessary to protect British interests.

SPAIN..

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Ambassador at Madrid reported to the Foreign Office, on 12th July, the assassination in the street of Lieut. Castillo, chief of the Madrid police, and the assassination on the same day of Sotelo, the leader of the Fascist party in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: On 14th July His Majesty's Chargé d'Affairs in Madrid reported that Don José Calvo Sotelo had been kidnapped from his home in Madrid at 3 a.m. on the morning of 13th July, and that some hours later his dead body was found in a cemetery with bullet wounds in the head and the heart. At the same time he also reported that a captain in the Madrid assault guards had been shot in Madrid on the night of 12th to l3th July. This captain of the assault guards is the Lieut. Castillo referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the declaration made by the Fascists at the graveside of Sotelo and was he told of the violent speech made by José Maria Gil Robles in the Spanish Parliament, and what his party intended to carry out?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice. As far as I recollect, the communication to which I referred was confined to the information I have given.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is there any evidence that Sotelo was a Fascist at all?

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British Red Cross has sent no medical or nursing personnel to either side in Spain, and has not recognised the status of those medical units which have been sent by voluntary efforts; and whether, in view of His Majesty's Government's declared intention to promote humanitarian efforts for the relief of suffering in the Spanish dispute, he will do all in his power to secure for these units the status of Red Cross workers?

Mr. EDEN: I am aware that the British Red Cross has sent no medical or nursing personnel to either side in Spain and has not recognised the status of those medical units which have been sent by voluntary efforts. The question of approaching the opposing forces with a view to persuading them to apply the provisions of the Convention in relation to the protection of Red Cross units is under consideration.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the British Red Cross asked the advice of His Majesty's Government on the matter, and whether they have acted in accordance with the advice given?

Mr. EDEN: No, I think this is really what happened, and I am obliged to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to this matter. The position is that the Geneva Red Cross Convention, 1929, does not apply to the civil war in Spain, and that is the legal position. I hope that it will be able to deal with the matter in the manner suggested.

Miss WILKINSON: While thanking the Minister, he has not replied to the particular question that I asked. May I repeat it? Have the British Red Cross asked the advice of His Majesty's Government, and have they acted upon it?

Mr. EDEN: I am quite sure that we have not dissuaded anybody from taking action. Naturally, we wish to take all the action and to give all the humanitarian help we can in the interests of all concerned.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further progress has been made with plans for the exchange of prisoners in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Negotiations are at present taking place between representatives of the Basque Government and of General Franco, under the auspices of the International Red Cross Committee, for the complete exchange of all prisoners and hostages between the Basque and neighbouring territories. His Majesty's Government have been kept informed of the progress of these negotiations by His Majesty's Ambassador who is himself actively assisting the representatives of the International Red Cross Committee, and I am hopeful that they will result in the exchange of several thousand persons in the near future. As the negotiations are not yet concluded I am not yet in a position to give the House full details. I am able, however, to say that at the request of both sides His Majesty's ships have undertaken, as soon as the agreement has been signed and approved lists drawn up, to give their fullest cooperation in carrying out the exchange.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the precise terms of the guarantee given to His Majesty's Government by the Government of Italy concerning the occupation of the Balearic Islands by Italian subjects?

Mr. EDEN: The assurances to which the hon. Member refers were made verbally, and I am consequently not able to lay papers before the House. I can, however, give the following outline of the manner in which the assurances were given. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Rome informed the Italian Minister


for Foreign Affairs on 12th September, on my instructions, that
any alteration of the status quo in the Western Mediterranean would be a matter of the closest concern to His Majesty's Government.
In taking note of this communication, Count Ciano assured Mr. Ingram that the Italian Government had not, either before or since the revolution in Spain, engaged in any negotiations with General Franco whereby the status quo in the Western Mediterranean would be altered, nor would they engage in any such negotiations in the future. This assurance was subsequently reaffirmed spontaneously to the British Naval Attaché in Rome by the Italian Ministry of Marine, and the Italian Ambassador in London has on several occasions given me similar verbal assurances.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the view of his advisers, British treaty engagements to come to the support in certain circumstances of Portugal include the Portuguese colonies?

Mr. EDEN: The Treaties of Alliance between Great Britain and Portugal contain specific reference to the defence and protection of the Portuguese colonies.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French guarantee of military support to Great Britain in the event of unprovoked aggression includes the Irish Free State?

Mr. EDEN: It is not for me to define the scope of the assurance given by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, but his statement, which I quoted in reply to a question by the hon. Member on Thursday last, refers to "the defence of Great Britain."

Mr. MANDER: Is it not of the utmost importance that the countries concerned should know exactly where they stand, and could not the right hon. Gentleman ask the French Government for further information on the subject?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member will understand that this is a unilateral declaration by the French Government. We had no assurance of this kind at all under the Locarno Treaty.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

POLISH IMMIGRATION.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether advantage was taken of the visit of Colonel Beck to London to discuss matters relating to Palestine and, in particular, the question of immigration of Polish Jews into Palestine?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 2nd December to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet).

DISTURBANCES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the destruction of the Migdal quarry and plant near Petach Tikuah by a large Arab band wearing uniforms or as to the other outrages on 13th December?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have seen a, report of the incidents referred to, but have not yet received any official confirmation. I will ask the High Commissioner for Palestine for a, report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Seeing that this incident is not isolated, does not the right hon. Gentleman automatically get reports of this recrudescence of violence?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is rather curious. I usually receive reports of what is going on, but I have no reference to this particular question.

DEMOLITIONS, JAFFA (RE-HOUSING).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has authorised the expenditure of £15,000 which has been assigned from Palestine revenues to build a village for the Jaffa Arabs evicted from that town; and whether anything similar is being done for the Jaffa Jews who were forced to leave Jaffa and live elsewhere?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Palestine Government has been authorised to expend £15,000 on the erection of houses, for which a suitable rent will be charged, to accommodate 100 Arab families rendered homeless by the special demolitions in Jaffa undertaken by Government in the circumstances explained in my reply to a question in the House on 24th June by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallaeher). I understand that in consultation with the appropriate Jewish bodies the Palestine Government has agreed to contribute about £5,000 towards the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation of Jewish refugees in Tel-Aviv from Jaffa and elsewhere.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Seeing that the Jewish refugees from Jaffa outnumber the Arab refugees by about 20 to one, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Palestine Government that the rebuilding which they are doing for Arab refugees should be paralleled by rebuilding for the Jewish refugees?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that I can accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures, nor can I accept his description of these particular Arabs as refugees. In the military interests, and in the interests of peace and order in Jaffa, it was decided to dynamite two lines through the town. The Royal Engineers blew up the houses, and I think the Palestine Government have the duty of rehousing these people elsewhere, as they are now doing.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the Jews who were driven out of Palestine owing to the danger of assassination have exactly the same case for rehousing, with Government assistance, as the Arabs?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Then it would be the duty of the Government to re-house almost everybody who have been removed or have removed themselves during a period of disturbance and disorder which we all regret. I cannot commit the Government to that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sorry to be persistent, but is it possible now for the Jews to go back to Jaffa with safety, or is the protection still inadequate?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that when we know what the policy of the future is to be, when we have the report

of the Royal Commission and the whole Palestine question is cleared up, it may be possible for Jews and Arabs to live as they have up to this year in friendly accord in Jaffa.

Miss WILKINSON: Is it not the fact that the Minister explained at the time that the blowing up of these buildings was really due to slum clearance, and the necessity of improving the housing conditions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I made a considerable speech on the point in June, and I have answered a good many questions on the subject. I have nothing to add to my statement.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the Government's intention to resist efforts at Geneva to recognise the Italian conquest of Abyssinia or to exclude Abyssinia from the League?

Mr. EDEN: The question of the position of Abyssinia in relation to the League is not likely to arise before the next meeting of the Assembly, and when it does it will be for the Assembly to deal with it in the light of the circumstances as they then exist. It is therefore impossible for me at the present moment to state the attitude which His Majesty's Government would adopt in the hypothetical circumstances contemplated by the hon. Member.

Mr. LEACH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that no change of policy towards this unfortunate country is contemplated by the Government?

Mr. EDEN: That is rather a different question. There are some others on the Paper about that.

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to replace the legation at Addis Ababa by a Consulate-General, and, if so, whether this implies recognition of any change of the status of Italy in Abyssinia consequent on her successful aggression; and, alternatively, will he give an assurance that no such change will be made until the House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Mr. EDEN: The question of British representation in occupied Abyssinia has been for some time under consideration with special reference to the problems arising from the retention of a diplomatic mission accredited to a government which no longer exercises any local authority. In any case it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to accord de jure recognition of the annexation of Abyssinia.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

JAPANESE NAVAL CONTINGENT (LANDING, TSINGTAO).

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the protest made by the Chinese Government against the landing of a Japanese naval contingent at Tsingtao in connection with an industrial dispute?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that a protest on this subject was made to the Japanese Ambassador at Nanking on 3rd December, and that similar representations were also made to the Japanese Government by the Chinese Ambassador at Tokyo. I am informed that a settlement of this incident has now been reached as a result of local discussions.

HONG KONG AND CANTON.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the satisfactory exchange of visits between the Governor of Hong Kong on the one hand, and the chairman of the Kwangtung Provincial Government and the Mayor of Canton on the other; and whether he will take an early opportunity of conveying to the Chinese Government the gratification of His Majesty's Government on the amicable relations existing between the British colony and the Canton authorities?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. Sentiments of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend have been expressed from time to time on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I am confident that the Chinese Government fully appreciate and share their satisfaction at the excellent relations which exist between Canton and Hong Kong.

Mr. MOREING: In view of the excellent relations which have been established and now exist between Canton And Hong Kong, would it not be a suitable opportunity to consider holding a trade fair or exhibition of British industries in Hong Kong because of the potential markets?

Mr. EDEN: I am not the person to whom that question should be addressed.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement issued by the Inspector-General of Customs in China to the effect that the steps taken for the prevention of smuggling in North China can only be regarded as palliatives, that the decline in illicit imports may be attributed to the fact that the Tientsin markets are overstocked, and that the unprecedented restrictions placed upon the operation of the Customs prevention service in East Hopei render the exercise of normal preventive measures impossible; and whether he will instruct His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo to confer with the Japanese Government with a view to restoring a normal condition of trade in North China ports?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir, but I understand that the Inspector-General also indicated that the southward distribution of the smuggled goods had been checked with success. The matter has been one of those recently under discussion between the Chinese and Japanese Governments, and at the moment I do not consider it necessary to issue any further instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo. His Majesty's Government will naturally continue to watch the situation closely, and will take such action as may be considered appropriate in the interests of British trade and the security of loan obligations which might be affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PALESTINE (SERVICE AWARDS).

Sir ROBERT YOUNG: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of awards distributed for special services during the Palestine expedition and how many of these were given to engine-room artificers, seamen and stokers, respectively, and whether any awards were


given to naval men who volunteered for railway or other special services on land in Palestine?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): Awards for gallantry during the emergency in Palestine have been made to one officer of the Royal Navy, one stoker petty officer and one leading seaman. These awards were for special services on shore in Palestine. Further awards for good service will be considered on receipt of recommendations from the Air Vice-Marshal or General in Command in Palestine.

Sir R. YOUNG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these awards were given on the recommendation of the military authorities in Palestine?

Sir S. HOARE: As far as I can remember, I think that formally the recommendation came from the Air Vice-Marshal, but, no doubt, he consulted the naval authorities at the time.

BATTLESHIPS (RE-ENGINING).

Miss WARD: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make on the re-engining of two of His Majesty's battleships.?

Sir S. HOARE: Orders are about to be placed for new machinery for His Majesty's Ship "Queen Elizabeth" and His Majesty's Ship "Valiant" with the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company, Limited, of Govan, Glasgow, and with the Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company, Limited, of Wallsend-onTyne, respectively.

NEW CAPITAL SHIPS.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the answer given by him on 29th July last to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), whether it is still his intention to proceed by way of tender in relation to the construction of any new capital ships which may be included in the 1937 programme?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. I propose shortly to issue invitations to firms to submit tenders for the construction of capital ships to be laid down in 1937. In view of the length of time needed for the preparation of tenders and their examination by the Admiralty when received, this preliminary action is necessary in order to avoid delay at a subse-

quent stage. No tender will, of course, be finally accepted before the relevant 1937 Estimates have received Parliamentary approval, so that no question arises of anticipating the decision of Parliament in relation to the 1937 Naval Construction Programme.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will my right hon. Friend spread the contracts as widely as possible when they are given, and especially to firms which carry out their operations in depressed and Special Areas?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already indicated more than once in the House that we do take into account the needs of the Special Areas, and, as far as we can, we do spread our orders, but we are necessarily bound by certain limitations.

SERVICE CONDITIONS (REVIEWS).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of requests so far received at the Admiralty under the new reviews of service conditions; the commands and the number from each command; the commands from which the requests are outstanding; the date on which the last requests are expected; and whether he will take steps to expedite the reviews in view of the fact that they were begun nearly four months ago?

Sir S. HOARE: As the answer includes a table of figures, I propose, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Would the First Lord reply to the last sentence of my question?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, the procedure is taking its normal course. There is no undue delay. There are, however, a large number of these requests. They have to be analysed command by command before we can deal with such of them as affect the Navy generally rather than the specific Departments.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman will know that these reviews have been in abeyance for some time, and although we are now glad that they are being prosecuted, some of the men are anxious that the reviews should be settled very early on.

Sir S. HOARE: We are taking them into account as quickly as we can, but the right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the requests run into several hundreds.

Following is the information required:

The number of requests already received at the Admiralty under the Review of Service Conditions is about 1,665. Approximate figures for each command are:


Home Fleet
310


Nore
245


Plymouth
300


China
295


East Indies
70


America and West Indies
260


New Zealand
30


Reserve Fleet
75


Fishery Protection and Minesweeping Flotilla
50


Coast of Scotland
30

The commands from which requests have not yet been received are Portsmouth, Mediterranean and Africa. The last of these requests may be expected to be received in January.

With regard to the last part of the question, it was only the beginning of these reviews that was made in September or October. Since then, the reviews have been continuing, and the interval has been fully occupied in the investigation of requests in the Fleet and in their transit to the Admiralty. The Admiralty begin their examination of requests as they are received, but they cannot undertake their Review of Service Conditions as a whole until they have received and examined the requests from all commands.

GOLD COAST (ASHANTI ORDINANCE).

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an Ordinance has been issued by the government of the Gold Coast (Ashanti, No. 44, of 20th November, 1936) prohibiting four members of the West African youth league, Messrs. Agyeman, Bobieh, Dampere, and Atta, whose previous convictions were quashed by the court of appeal on 13th November, from returning to their homes in Kumasi, although they have already undergone 114 days' imprisonment; what the reason for this prohibition is; whether their property has been confiscated; whether he

is aware that the Gold Coast Government is unwilling to maintain these appellants and their dependants, who are suffering deplorably as a consequence; and whether he will have the position in Ashanti investigated?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that the Ordinance in question, of which I have not yet received a copy, is in general terms and empowers the Governor, after inquiry on oath, to order the removal of any person from Ashanti if he deems it expedient for peace, order or good government. My approval of the enactment of this legislation was given in August last. The Governor informed me on 17th November that the return to Ashanti of the four persons mentioned, whose conviction on charges of conspiracy against the Asantehene had been quashed on appeal on technical grounds, was likely to cause grave unrest and possibly serious riots leading to bloodshed. I, therefore, authorised him to enact the Ordinance mentioned and to warn the four persons concerned that in the event of their return the powers conferred by the Ordinance would be used against them. I have no information regarding the property of these persons, or the present position regarding their maintenance and the maintenance of their dependants. I am asking the Governor for a report. I have been kept informed of recent developments in Ashanti, and I see no reason for any special investigation.

Miss RATHBONE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that if these men are being exorcised from their own territory, without any proof of misconduct on their part, the responsibility does rest upon the Governor of the Colony to see that they and their dependants do not suffer economically and that their property is protected?

Miss WILKINSON: When the right hon. Gentleman is asking for a report, will he try to discover whether it is the peculiar view of the Governor that any man who stands up for nationalism in his own Colony has something to do with Moscow?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to deny that absolutely. It has nothing to do with Moscow or that the Governor has any particular view that these people are Nationalists. These people are part


of the Ashanti Youth League and do not like the existing Asantehene, and they no. doubt wish to set up somebody else. I think that is all there is in it.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in his experience those who usually stand up for Britain are customarily associated with Moscow?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is purely trouble inside native authority. The whole question is whether we are to stand by constituted native authority or see the whole principle of indirect rule on which we boast that we base our African policy, break down.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

MAYBURY COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Wing-Commander WRIGHT: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can give an assurance to the House that the report of the Maybury Committee will be published before 1st January, 1937?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My Noble Friend has now received the report of the Maybury Committee. He had previously given instructions that the report should be published as soon as he received it. The appendices to the report, however, contain a number of maps and diagrams, the reproduction of which will necessarily take a little time, but I should hope that publication will be possible early next month.

AERODROMES (AREAS).

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the approximate total area of grassland available for aeroplanes landing at Croydon aerodrome and for the central airports of Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Paris?

Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that the approximate acreages of the landing areas are: Croydon 250, Berlin 257, Amsterdam 163, Brussels 168, and Paris 282. It is, however, only at Croydon that the landing area largely consists of land under grass.

Mr. SANDYS: In regard to the area of Croydon aerodrome, can the Under-Secretary say whether the figure he has given includes the whole aerodrome, or

only the flat portion on which planes land?

Sir P. SASSOON: It includes the land area.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ENLISTMENT.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that there were 52,245 definite applications for enlistment in the Royal Air Force for the year ended 31st March, 1936, and that during this period only 18,889 were medically examined, he can say when it is proposed to examine and/or reject the balance of these entrants?

Sir P. SASSOON: Of the 52,245 applications for enlistment in the Royal Air Force in the year ended 31st March, 1936, about 23,000 were rejected on various grounds of unsuitability or were not pursued by the applicants. The remaining applicants were medically examined and 18,889 found physically fit.

Mr. DAY: Were the balance definitely rejected?

Sir P. SASSOON: They were rejected on one ground or another.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that applicants from Glasgow are brought to London and if rejected have to pay their own expenses, that this is a considerable hardship on many people with inadequate means, and will he see that some examinations take place in Scotland instead of bringing people at their own expense to London?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will look into that.

FILMS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what machines or equipment in the Royal Air Force, and/or units under his control, have been used for or in the production of films for commercial purposes during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and what payment has been made to his Department for the use of same and to those persons so employed?

Sir P. SASSOON: In regard to the first part of the question, the collection of the required information would involve an expenditure of time and labour which


would not be justified at the present time. As regards the second part, it would be contrary to established practice to disclose particulars of payments made to the Department by film production companies for facilities afforded. With reference to the third part, the Air Ministry appropriates in aid of Air Votes one half of any charges raised against film companies for facilities given, the other half being paid by the company to the Royal Air Force Sports Board.

Mr. DAY: Do the fees paid to persons who take part in these films compare favourably with the fees received from the Navy?

Sir P. SASSOON: I believe they are identical.

ACCIDENTS, No. 102 SQUADRON.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement as to why six out of the seven machines belonging to No. 102 squadron failed to reach Frimingley aerodrome on 12th December?

Wing-Commander WRIGHT: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why it was necessary for the four occupants of the Royal Air Force machine which crashed at Oldham on Saturday, 12th December, to leave this machine by parachute?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can state the causes of the fatal accidents to Royal Air Force machines on Saturday, 12th December, and why only one of the seven machines flying from Northern Ireland to Yorkshire reached its destination safely; whether these accidents were in any way due to the formation of ice on the wings of the machines concerned; and for what reason these heavy bombing machines are not fitted with de-icing equipment?

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make regarding the accidents which occurred to machines belonging to No. 102 squadron, Royal Air Force, on 12th December?

Sir P. SASSOON: As I explained yesterday, the circumstances of the accidents are being fully investigated by

Courts of Inquiry. The points in my hon. Friends' questions are among those which will be thoroughly considered in the investigation, and each will be dealt with in the statement which I have promised to make to the House in due course. The same applies to the specific questions raised yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) and I am glad to be able to give the House this definite assurance. I am certain that the House will recognise that it would be improper and unfair for me at this stage to attempt to segregate the various matters which are the subject of the closest investigation by the Courts of Inquiry.

Mr. PERKINS: Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance to the House that, in spite of the Press reports of this accident and the great publicity it has received, the Royal Air Force will continue to fly in bad weather, and will be encouraged to fly in bad weather; also, whether it is not the fact that the fatal accidents which have occurred during the last 12 months are about one-tenth of the corresponding figures for the German air force during the same period?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first question is certainly in the affirmative, and from the information I have received I should say that the answer to the second question is also in the affirmative.

Mr. PALING: Could not some of the questions which have been asked concerning this accident have been answered without interfering with the business of the court which is inquiring into it—without going behind their back?

Sir P. SASSOON: I think the House will realise that it would be unfair to deal with certain question in regard to a case which is being examined by a court of inquiry. They will have to examine the conduct of the officers concerned.

Mr. PALING: Does that apply to questions as to whether the machines were equipped with a certain apparatus or not? That is a question which can be answered "Yes" or "No."

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what types of machines are supplied to No. 102


squadron; when this type was first designed; and in what year the first machine of this type was supplied to the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: No. 102 squadron is equipped with Heyfords. The first production specification for this type was issued in November, 1932, and supply to the Royal Air Force commenced in November, 1933. The aircraft of No. 102 squadron are to specifications of 1934 and 1935.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRUNK ROADS (LIGHTING).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Transport whether it will be his policy to allow electric cables used in connection with the lighting of trunk roads to be tapped for local street lighting in villages adjacent to trunk roads, and for household lighting and other purposes in such villages and in farms near by?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): There is no reason why cables used for street lighting should not, if they are of sufficient capacity, be tapped for other purposes. This is within the discretion of the supply authorities concerned.

Mr. MATHERS: Has not my question been misapprehended I am asking about the lighting circuits which will be available in connection with the new powers which the Minister is taking to illuminate trunk roads. Do I understand that he will be prepared to allow cables of that kind to be tapped for other public purposes?

Captain HUDSON: The lion. Member is under a misapprehension. My right hon. Friend is not seeking powers himself under the Bill to generate or distribute electricity. All that he is able to do under Clause 6 is to make arrangements with any electricity undertaker for the supply of electricity.

BELMONT HILL, LEWISHAM.

Sir R. YOUNG: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that four services of omnibuses, in addition to other traffic, use Belmont Hill, Lewisham; that it is the main road to Blackheath and Woolwich, etc.; that owing to there being

no foot paving on part of the south side of this road there is great danger to pedestrians; and will be take steps, with the local authority concerned, to remove the danger to resident householders and the public who use the road?

Captain HUDSON: I am already in communication with the local authority on this matter.

Sir R. YOUNG: Will the Parliamentary Secretary let me know the result?

Captain HUDSON: Yes, certainly.

MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.

Mr. W. H. GREEN: asked the Minister of Transport the number of motorists submitting themselves for driving tests during the six months to the last convenient date; what are the percentages of that number failing to pass the first, second, and third tests; and is he satisfied that there is a reasonable uniformity in the character of the tests imposed?

Captain HUDSON: From 30th May to 28th November, 1936, 194,488 candidates submitted themselves for driving tests. Of these 28·46 per cent. failed. Candidates are not required to disclose how many times they may have been tested previously, and no information is available as to the number of persons who submitted themselves for a second or third time. From the outset steps have been taken to secure reasonable uniformity in the character of the tests conducted by the various driving examiners, and I think that, generally speaking, it has been achieved.

Mr. DAY: Is any information given to the drivers as to why they have failed to pass the test?

Captain HUDSON: That is a different question.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. WATKINS: asked the Minister of Transport the number of people killed and injured in road accidents since January, 1931?

Captain HUDSON: Approximately 40,350 killed and 1,290,000 injured.

Mr. WATKINS: Has the Minister any plans under consideration for reducing these appalling figures during the next five years?

Captain HUDSON: The hon. Member knows that my right hon. Friend has this matter constantly before him, and that he is considering a number of suggestions at the present moment.

DE-RESTRICTION OF ROADS, BRADFORD.

Mr. LEACH: asked the. Minister of Transport on what grounds he proposes to set aside the wishes of the Bradford City Council in de-restricting lengths of road within its jurisdiction, as recently announced by him; and is he prepared to reconsider such decision?

Captain HUDSON: The facts of each case were carefully considered, after a local inquiry, and a conclusion reached on the individual merits. My right hon. Friend's decision is open to review, after a reasonable time, upon the submission of fresh evidence.

Mr. LEACH: Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that not only the city council, the watch committee and the chief constable but other authorities in Bradford who have any responsibility for the control of the roads, are against this de-restriction order, and in view of his tragic answer to question No. 36, would it not be better for him to reconsider his decision?

Captain HUDSON: There were 15 roads under consideration at this inquiry, of which eight were recommended to be de-restricted. As the House knows, it is the Minister's responsibility, not that of the local authority, and having considered the report of the inquiry the Minister came to his conclusion, which, as I hive stated, is open to review after a reasonable time, and if fresh evidence shows that the road should not be derestricted.

Mr. LEACH: What kind of fresh evidence is it possible to get after an inquiry which has been so complete? The Minister knows that the roads are in built-up areas?

Captain HUDSON: The Minister has to carry out the Act of Parliament, which lays down that an inquiry should take place, and he is naturally guided by the results of the inquiry.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: What number of fatal accidents are necessary to justify a review?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some other hon. Members for Bradford are concerned about this, because some of these roads are not in built-up areas?

OMNIBUS SERVICE, WARLEY AND BRENTWOOD.

Mr. PARKER: asked the Minister of Transport whether steps will be taken for a Provisional Order to be granted to the London. Passenger Transport Board to allow them to operate the whole of the omnibus service between Warley and Brentwood, which they have compulsorily acquired, even though a portion of the route may be outside their area; or, alternatively, whether he will consider introducing legislation to remove anomalies in cases where transport areas overlap as in this case?

Captain HUDSON: Provisional Order powers are not available for the purpose, and my right hon. Friend does not think there is sufficient justification for introducing a Public Bill to amend the Board's Act. I am, however, inquiring further into this particular case.

SPEEDOMETERS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the House any information in connection with the case of a lorry driver who appeared before the Birmingham assizes on a charge of manslaughter; whether he is aware that the man was forced to use a speedometer that was defective; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Captain HUDSON: I have seen a Press report of the case to which the hon. Member apparently refers. My right hon. Friend has already published draft regulations which would require motor vehicles subject to a speed limit of 20 miles per hour or more to be fitted with an efficient speedometric device.

HYDE PARK CORNER AND VICTORIA.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Transport what is the exact nature of the scheme which he now has under consideration to provide by-passes for the relief of traffic at Hyde Park Corner and Victoria?

Captain HUDSON: No by-pass scheme is contemplated for Hyde Park Corner. The possibility of by-passing Victoria is under consideration, but the project is still at a preliminary stage.

ROADSIDE TREES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to encourage highway authorities who have not already planted trees alongside the roads under their control to make a special effort to do so in connection with the Coronation; and whether he will advise such authorities to plant fruit trees along the roads wherever practicable?

Captain HUDSON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that lighting arrangements are provided before the trees are planted, since, as he is probably aware, on these Lancashire roads the trees that were planted are constantly being knocked down because there are no lighting arrangements?

Captain HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is anxious to see these roads both properly lighted and properly bordered with trees.

Mr. PALING: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going to carry out that process on the new roads under his jurisdiction?

Captain HUDSON: In his Second Reading speech on the Trunk Roads Bill, my right hon. Friend described what he hoped the trunk roads would be like.

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Minister of Transport how much of the £100,000,000 of the five-year programme for the roads was spent during the financial year 1935–36; and how much is estimated to be spent during the year 1936–37?

Captain HUDSON: It is estimated that during the first year of the five-years' programme of road improvements expenditure was rather more than £2,750,000 and that during the current financial year it will approach £7,000,000. This is of course exclusive of expenditure on pre-1935–36 schemes continued during the years in question.

ELECTRICITY CHARGES (WEST MIDLANDS).

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the high charges for electrical energy for power purposes demanded by the West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority, the majority of the members of which are representatives of the local authorities, and of which the largest representation is that of the Wolverhampton Corporation; is he aware that that corporation are quoting rates for electrical energy substantially below those quoted by the West Midlands authority, and that, as a consequence, industrialists are being attracted to Wolverhampton from the distressed areas in Shropshire; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation?

Captain HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is aware that the power charges of the West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority are somewhat higher than those of the neighbouring undertaking of the corporation of Wolverhampton. Lest my hon. and gallant Friend should draw any wrong inference from that fact, I should explain that the Joint Authority's undertaking has only been established for a few years and covers a large area which is mainly rural, whereas Wolverhampton have a large and long established undertaking operating in a densely populated area, The authority's order provides that the terms for high tension power supplies shall, failing agreement, be fixed by arbitration and the matter is one in which my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene. He is, however, informed that the Joint Authority hope to be able to reduce their charges in the near future.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the proposal will increase the consumption of electricity for power purposes from these sources by no less than 25 per cent?

Mr. MANDER: Is not the real reason why industries are being attracted to Wolverhampton the many facilities which are offered there for industry?

Mr. ROSTRON DUCKWORTH: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the granting of advantageous terms by the Central Electricity Authority to large


cities and towns will have the effect of reducing the number of new industries in certain districts to the great disadvantage of people dwelling there as regards employment, and will he take steps to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will inform the House of the annual output of houses in Aberdeen, Dundee, and Edinburgh in each of the last three years; and whether any action has been taken by the respective town councils to accelerate the output?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Wedderburn): Inquiries are being made to obtain the information desired and when these are completed I shall furnish the hon. Member with the results.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make arrangements to obviate the inconvenience and overcrowding of families in Fauldhouse, West Lothian, through their eviction from houses owned by the United Collieries, Limited, and required for their workmen; whether he is prepared to protect tenants from eviction in such cases until new houses are available; and whether he can account for the delay in proceeding with approved housing schemes at Fauldhouse?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: The responsibility for making arrangements for the accommodation of the ejected families so far as they are themselves unable to find accommodation rests on the local authority. I understand that all of the eight families ejected have secured accommodation elsewhere, three of them in houses belonging to the local authority. My right hon. Friend has no power to intervene in the case of any decree given by a Sheriff for the ejection of tenants from private houses. With regard to the last part of the question, the county council have already built 302 houses in Fauldhouse. Tenders for an additional 34 houses were approved in April, 1936. Twelve are now in an advanced stage of construction. The delay

in completing the houses is due mainly to a shortage of building labour.

Mr. MATHERS: In view of the fact that this is not an entirely isolated case, will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland take into consideration the possibility of making some provision other than is available at the present time for people who are evicted from houses because of the stoppage of their employment with the employers who own the houses?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I think the only method of providing houses is to accelerate the building programme. I do not know whether any special arrangements can be made to provide houses for people who have been evicted from other houses beyond those which are open to the generality of applicants.

Mr. CASSELLS: Arising out of the reply, is not this a definite illustration of the vicious nature of the system of decontrolling dwelling-houses?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: No. These houses were never subject to control. I have studied the correspondence on this subject sent to me by the hon. Member, but I do not think it would be proper for me to give any opinion of my own, since it is not a matter for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not only applicable to Scotland, but to parts of England, and South Wales—

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: And Yorkshire.

Mr. TAYLOR: —and that when men have reached the age of 65 and the employers no longer require them, they are evicted from their houses, and the houses—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for matters in England.

PROPOSED TRADING ESTATES COMPANY.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Economic Committee have made any progress regarding the scheme for the establishment of a trading estate in the West of Scotland; and when it is intended to make grants available for the starting of new light industries in the


area as was suggested by the late Secretary of State on behalf of the Government?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: The proposal to form a Trading Estates Company in the Special Areas in Scotland is being actively investigated at the request of the Commissioner by a sub-committee of the Scottish Economic Committee. The inquiries have reached an advanced stage.

JUVENILE COURT, BELLSHILL.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that parents have been charged along with their children in recent cases heard in the juvenile court at Bellshill; and whether he will take steps to end this practice, which inflicts indignity upon the persons concerned?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I am not aware of the particular cases referred to; but I would point out to the hon. Member that the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Acts, 1908 to 1932, expressly provide for the attendance at court of the parents or guardians of juvenile offenders and empower the court to impose on them pecuniary penalties or to require them to find security for the juvenile offender's good behaviour.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Lord Advocate aware that this is not a question of summoning the parents to attend the court, but a question of placing the parents in the dock with the children and charging the parents with a separate offence, which was done in the particular case to which I am referring?

Mr. COOPER: If the hon. Member will be so good as to send me particulars of the case, I shall be glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

CONTRACTS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the value of the orders placed with firms in the Special Area of South Wales and Monmouthshire in connection with the Government's re-armament scheme?

The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): I regret I cannot give

this information. As I have already explained on a number of occasions in this House, the value of orders placed in particular areas in connection with the rearmament programme cannot be ascertained without an incommensurate amount of labour.

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Mr. DAY: asked the Lord President of the Council in what manner Defence Departments are represented on the Research Boards and Committees of Scientific and Industrial Research; and in what manner co-ordination exists between Defence Services and Research Departments of the Government?

Sir T. INSKIP: The Defence Departments are represented on the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research by Assessors and on a number of Research Boards and Committees of the Department by members or Assessors. For details, I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix I of the Annual Report of the Department for the year 1934–35 (Cmd. 5013). Co-ordination is further secured by formal and informal consultation, constantly maintained between officers of the Departments concerned; in addition, representatives of the Departments meet each year to compare and co-ordinate research programmes.

Mr. DAY: How many members of the Defence Departments are on these committees?

Sir T. INSKIP: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman himself in contact with the operations of these various committees?

Sir T. INSKIP: No, not with the detailed work of the various committees, but I am generally informed of steps taken in connection with the needs of the Defence Departments.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (INACTIVE ACCOUNTS).

Sir R. YOUNG: asked the Postmaster-General when a Post Office Savings Bank depositor's account becomes a dormant account; what number of years must elapse in which no deposit or withdrawal has taken place before the


account is regarded as dormant; and how many such dormant accounts now exist?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): There is no date at which it can be said that a Post Office Savings Bank account is really dormant, as transactions often take place in accounts which have remained inactive for many years. Accounts in which no transactions have taken place during the previous five years and in which the balances are less than are, for the purposes of economy in bookkeeping, regarded as inactive and are transferred to a special class. At 31st December, 1935, there were some 9,900,000 such accounts with an average of balance of 1s. 11d.

Sir R. YOUNG: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that there are no dormant accounts over £1?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: There are some inactive accounts over £1, but if the persons concerned desire to withdraw their money, it is there for them when they come along.

Sir R. YOUNG: Is interest added to those inactive accounts yearly if no application is made?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I have no information on that question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we deal fairly with all of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MERCHANT SHIPPING (FAR EAST).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the unsatisfactory position of British merchant shipping in the Far East, he will consider referring the question to the Imperial Shipping Committee for examination and advice as to remedial action?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Yes, Sir. The Imperial Shipping Committee have been for some time engaged on a survey of shipping which includes the Far East and they will be asked to furnish a special report on the position there.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY INFANTRY BRIGADE (CLERKS).

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been reached regarding improvement in the conditions of employment and rates of pay of clerks employed in the Territorial Army Infantry Brigade headquarter offices and when any proposed change in the conditions will take effect?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): Territorial Army Associations or Brigade Commanders are responsible for the actual conditions of employment and rates of pay of clerks employed in the Territorial Army Infantry Brigade headquarter offices, for the maintenance of which a grant is drawn from Army Funds which covers the cost of providing clerical assistance. My right hon. Friend is considering whether the amount of the grant calls for revision.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Leopoldina Railway has been compelled to default on its debentures owing to the treatment of the company by the Brazilian Government; that the British investors entrusted their savings for the use of the Brazilian people; that those savings have been jeopardised by the action of the Brazilian Government; and will he take such steps as may be possible to protect these British savings and, if necessary, place an import duty on Brazilian fruit, coffee, and cotton until the Brazilian Government safeguards these British investments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is making inquiries on this matter and will communicate the results to my hon. Friend.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this matter has now been hanging over for some months; and does he not think that it is time His Majesty's Government made a strong protest to the Brazilian Government about its general ill-treatment of British investors in that country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have already said that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is looking into this matter.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Could not the House have this information, and not an individual Member only?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That question should be put down again.

Mr. PALING: Does not the right hon. arid gallant Gentleman think that if such steps were taken as are suggested in the question, the Brazilians would pay less than ever?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.

Mr. STOREY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will instruct His Majesty's Stationery Office that, in order to provide employment, a larger proportion of Government printing contracts be placed on the North-East Coast and that, to assist printers, facilities for inspection of samples be provided nearer than London and Manchester?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Apart from certain classes of work which can only be carried out under special conditions, I understand that all the Stationery Office's printing work orders are either advertised publicly or circulated among the firms on the Department's list. It is open to any printing firm to apply to be put upon this list, and thus be given an opportunity to tender for any such orders. In accordance with the Government's policy, preference is given, other things being equal, to tenders from firms in the Special Areas. The extent to which orders can actually be given to firms in those areas must of course depend upon the tenders received. As regards the second part of the question, there are practical difficulties which would make it impossible for me to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. I understand that correspondence on the subject has passed recently between the North-Eastern Development Board and the Stationery Office, who have suggested to the Board certain ways in which firms might deal with the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT AND ALLOWANCES (RATES).

Mr. WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to institute an inquiry into the relation of rates of unemployment benefit, unemployment allowances, and the local wages rates and anomalies resulting therefrom?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Certain suggestions on this subject were made by the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee and by the Unemployment Assistance Board in their reports for last year. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that a formal inquiry at the present time would be likely to produce useful results. The matter is, however, one which will be kept under observation in the of day-to-day administration,

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to amend the Unemployment Act, 1934, to enable the Unemployment Assistance Board to meet the needs of members of households whose needs are not met owing to the failure of members of a household to make the payments prescribed by an assessment?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 2nd July last.

Mr. WHITE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman fully seized of the fact that the Unemployment Assistance Board canot carry out their statutory duties wit out amending legislation, or an arrangement of some kind; and is he prepared to look further into the matter since suffering is actually being caused? Is it not the case that he can do nothing in this matter without removing the household means test?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am not convinced that such legislation is needed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister's reply to be taken as meaning that he considers it unnecessary to have legislation to remove the means test; and is he going to remove it as an administrative act?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that the operation of this means test is producing in this country a crowd of suicides?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOURS OF LABOUR

Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Labour whether, arising out of consultations with representatives of industry and trade unions, he proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to a shorter working week?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir.

Mr. SHORT: Is the Minister aware of the action which is being taken in connection with this matter in other countries?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Yes, we are following developments in other countries.

Mr. PALING: Has the Minister finished his consultations with the representatives of industry, and, if so, is he giving consideration to this matter with a view to a report upon it later on?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member has, I think, already seen the White Paper which has been issued on this subject. This is a matter which is always under our consideration, and upon which we are always prepared to have consultation with those concerned.

Mr. LEACH: If the Minister cannot promise legislation in regard to the shortening of hours of work, will he, at any rate, give his representatives at Geneva further instructions on the matter and try to improve their very bad conduct there in this respect?

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINING (INSURED WORKERS).

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: (for Mr. KELLY) asked the Minister of Labour the number of tin miners registered as insured in October, 1935, and October, 1936?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Separate statistics of the numbers insured in the tin-mining industry are not available. For statistical purposes persons employed in this industry are included in the industrial group "Lead, Tin and Copper mining," and the estimated total number of insured persons, aged 14–64, in this classification in Great Britain was 4,510 at July, 1935, and 4,270 at July, 1936. Estimates of the numbers insured in particular industries are available only in respect of July of each year.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does not the Minister realise the necessity of publishing separate statistics in relation to this industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS SWORN.

Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENEVA CONVENTION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 19th January, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, with an Amendment.

Trunk Roads Bill.

Public Order Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to explain and amend sections two hundred and ninety-two and two hundred and ninety-three of the Government of India Act, 1935, and sections one hundred and forty-eight and one hundred and forty-nine of the Government of Burma Act, 1935." [India and Burma (Existing Laws) Bill [Lords.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

TRUNK ROADS BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

PUBLIC ORDER BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]

INDIA AND BURMA (EXISTING LAWS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 19th January, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

REGISTRATION AND CONTROL OF STOCKBROKERS BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 19th February read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.

PIT BATHS.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I beg to move,
That this House, in view of the advance that is taking place in housing, in health, and in hygiene, is of opinion that pit-head baths have become an urgent necessity for all mining communities and, recognising the limited resources of the Miners' Welfare Committee and its inability under present conditions to cope with the demands being made upon it, expresses the opinion that the Department of Mines should immediately institute an inquiry on the best method of amplifying the finances at the disposal of the Committee and thereby ensure that pit-head baths will be established as a recognised part of the equipment of the mines of this country.
I suppose there is no Member of this House who has not, at some time, come into contact with mining problems or taken part in mining discussions of one kind or another. I think I can also say that there is not a Member here who has not at one time or other expressed his high regard for the miners and his concern about the hard and arduous character of their occupation and the inadequate wages paid to them. While we may not get agreement on many of the issues which arise in relation to the mining industry, I think, despite the Amendment to my Motion which appears on the Order Paper, we should be able to secure unanimity on the question of pit baths being a recognised part of the equipment of all up-to-date collieries. I have here the report of an investigation made into this question in 1920 by Mr. Edgar L. Chappell and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), and I am interested in the fact that there is a foreword to this report by the late Robert Smillie, an old Member of this House and a well-known leader of the miners. In this foreword he says:
The authors of this hook have approached the subject in exactly the same manner as they approached the question of the housing of the working classes. With them, it is the all-important question of hygiene, elimination of drudgery, morality, appreciation of life, beauty which really matters.
If we consider the changes which have taken place in mining communities we can see the growing urgency of this question. In many mining villages a transformation is taking place. The very worst of the houses of the old type are disappearing. Not all the old houses

and not all the old villages have yet gone, but, as I say, the worst of the old type are going, and in most cases local authorities are striving to put schemes of one kind and another into operation in order to change the character of the homes provided for the miners and the character of the mining villages. Many striking contrasts can be seen in the mining villages, if one visits them. You see in some the old rows and the old houses, and in other parts of the same village you see the beginnings of what might be called a model or garden village, but if you go into the old homes, as many of us have gone on many occasions, you will be struck by the labour put out by the housewife in order to keep the home clean and bright.
From early morning, when the men go out to the pit, the housewife will be working hard, cleaning, scrubbing, and polishing, and it is remarkable, in view of the handicap in some of these miners' rows in the oldest type of houses, to see the striking character of the cleanliness that is evident in them if you pay a visit in the daytime. I have often heard City people who have visited mining villages pass the most appreciative remarks about the domestic character of the womenfolk there. But after they have laboured all the forenoon to get the house clean and tidy, in the afternoon, coming off the four o'clock shift, there may be a husband, or a son, or two or three sons, and they come into the house carrying with them their wet, sodden clothing, thick with coal dust and all kinds of damp. There is one large apartment, and in some cases a bedroom adjoining, but the main apartment is the living room, and in this room the clothes have to be taken off and hung up to dry, with all the coal dust and gases affecting the conditions of cleanliness in the home. No one who has not had experience can realise the enormous labour this means to the women in miners' homes, but they have got to undertake it day after day.
I am sure hon. Members on all sides of the House will understand the eagerness with which a miner's family or any working family goes from an old type of house into a new type of house, with the modern advantages which it possesses. Those advantages arc not many, but nevertheless there are certain modern advantages, and if you take the new


house that is becoming a feature of our mining areas and industrial districts, you will see that when a miner's family gets into one of them, if there was energy directed towards cleanliness and brightness in the old house, it is even more apparent in the new house. I have often heard it said that cleanliness is beautiful. If that be so, then you get real beauty in some of these miners' homes and particularly in some of the new homes. I tell you, they literally shine with the labour that is put out to get them into that condition, and are we going to say that we will get the local authorities to provide opportunities for new, and clean, and healthy homes, and then force the miners to come from the pits and carry all this refuse with them into these homes? Surely there is no hon. Member in any part of the House who would be prepared to tolerate that for a moment longer than was absolutely necessary.
I have heard it said, or I have read in the Press, that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is a bricklayer and has quite an opinion of himself as a bricklayer.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: He does not do much now.

Mr. GALLACHER: I have no doubt that when the sun is shining and the air is clear, and all the omens are favourable, he will be an exceptionally good bricklayer, but when the dark clouds obscure the sun and the omens are towards stormy weather, I am afraid his bricklaying will not call for very much praise. I have heard the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) called "Farmer George." You cannot imagine the bricklayer I have mentioned or "Farmer George" going in at the front door of his own house and through the hallway into the drawing room, carrying all the plaster and marks of toil with him. If either of them did, I am sure there would be a domestic crisis that would send him scurrying for cover. If we consider the argument as applied to such cases as I have referred to, surely we can see to it that in more essential cases care is taken to provide that the refuse from the pit shall not be carried into the homes of the miners.
I make an appeal to hon. Members on behalf of the wives and the mothers.

They deserve our consideration. We should always be prepared to appreciate their qualities, and we should see that whatever we can do we shall do to make their toil easier and to guarantee that the work which they do to brighten up the home is appreciated, not only in the mining areas, but here also. Therefore, I make my first appeal on behalf of the wives and the mothers. For their sakes, I ask for the immediate installation of pit baths at every working pit in the country. But we do not only have the mothers to consider; we have also the children to consider. The children in mining areas, like children in all working-class districts, are subject to all the dangers that arise from inclement weather and are subject to the fact that they have to go out very often without a sufficiency of good clothing on their bodies or of good food within their bodies. We are taking up now, through the various Departments, ways and means to try to cope with infantile mortality and with diseases and troubles among the children. The Ministry of Health is responsible for clinics of one kind and another, and we are supplying milk in our schools, which is something for which the present Secretary of State for Scotland exhibited very great zeal when he was Minister of Agriculture.
We are trying in many ways to make things safer and better for the children, but we are not doing enough. We have only made a start, and we have very much farther to go, but here, right before us, there is a danger facing the children that we can immediately remove. I have been affected, as all Members of this House and people throughout the country have been affected, by the stories that have been told about the "quins" and the care that has been taken of them. Those five children are growing up bright, bonny and healthy. But there may be five children in a miner's home, though not all born on one day. They deserve every bit as much care as any other children, whether the "quins" or children in any other home. Here is a danger being taken right into their midst. You may have a child a few months old, or it may be a year or two years old, and that child may be affected by one of the epidemics that go round about in a mining home, such as influenza, measles, or some other trouble that is common


to children. The father is forced by the exigencies of the situation to go into his home carrying with him this coaldust and dirt. The damp, sodden clothes have to be hung up to dry. In the report of this investigation we read:
The clothes are often soaking and covered with mud and coaldust. They soil everything they touch. The wet and dirty garments must be dried and sometimes mended, and the big fires which have been prepared for boiling the water have to be maintained or renewed.
One of the Scottish miners' leaders, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland, said:
From my own experience as a miner, I have known my wife to rise as often as six or seven times in the night time and turn my clothes when I was working in a wet place, and we had to inhale the steam rising from these clothes all night.
Upon this the Commissioners commented:
When it is remembered that the steam given off by the wet clothes may include injurious mineral fumes, it will be seen that the risk to the health of the children is very great when the kitchen (which is also the chief sleeping apartment) is used for this purpose by day and night.
The Commission stated:
The risk to the health of the children is very great.
We should take whatever steps are necessary to free the children from this danger, right from this moment. No time should be lost in saving them from the menace.

Mr. FLEMING: I have read very carefully the terms of the Motion, and I would like to know from the hon. Member whether he wants first the inquiry referred to in the second part of the Motion, or the pit-head baths before the inquiry.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want the pithead baths at the earliest possible moment and I want the Mines Department to inquire how the fund of the welfare committee can be amplified in order to provide baths at the earliest possible moment. Presently I shall suggest how the money can be supplied. The inquiry could be immediately set on foot and the money immediately raised, and the installations could be immediately proceeded with. When I use the term "immediately" it is understood that I am speaking in a relative manner.

Mr. FLEMING: Which does the hon. Member want first, the inquiry as to whether there is need for amplification of the funds of the Welfare Committee, or the pit head baths?

Mr. GALLACHER: I will make it clear even to the hon. and learned Member, although that may be a difficulty. There are not only the mothers and the children to be considered, but there are the miners. The miners have to work in wet places. They come up from the pits soaking. Then with their soaked clothes on they have to travel for a mile or two miles or three miles in order to get home. It is an almost intolerable position in which to place any man. I am certain that any hon. Member here if he had to go through the experience just once, would have no hesitation whatever in working for a change. Let us see what the investigation found in regard to this matter. They described the miner going to work on a winter morning. He has a dreary walk,
sometimes through lanes and along field paths which are nothing better than a series of pools of water and soft slush.
By the time he reaches his destination, in bad weather his garments are often sodden with rain and mud. "Very rarely is any provision made for drying the clothing," they say. And then they state:
At length his day's toil is over. He leaves his working place, travels again along the main roads to the pit bottom and is conveyed to the surface. The sudden transition from a temperature of 65 or 70 degrees Fahrenheit to an outside temperature possibly below zero makes him shiver, and the warm damp glow of his body gives way to an unpleasant sensation of clamminess. Having recovered his top garments, he starts on his homeward journey, repeating in reversed order the same stages as he passed through in the morning. As his body is exhausted with his day's toil, however, he is now less fit to face the inclemency of the cold and wet weather, and the discomfort and roughness of the journey than he was eight or nine hours earlier. The hardships and severity of these journeys in winter may be gathered from the fact that the caps of the miners sometimes become frozen to the hair of their heads while the water-sodden legs of their trousers are covered with icicles.
Can hon. Members visualise men walking home in that condition or the danger to the health of children that is threatened by men having to undergo such an experience? When I hear expressions of


sympathy for the miners, I ask are they to be forced a day longer than is necessary to endure such experiences? Here is a letter I received from the Secretary of the Dundonald branch of the Fife, Clackmannan and Kinross Miners' Union:
On behalf of the workers employed at Lady Helen Colliery, Dundonald, Cardin-den, Fife, I have to inform you of the very urgent need for baths at this colliery. At the present time there are 360 workers employed at this pit, 50 per cent, of whom travel a distance of from three to four miles to and from their work every day. Almost 60 per cent. of these workers are working under very wet conditions.
That is what is going on all over the country. In winter weather it is all right if you are well wrapped up in comfortable clothing, if you have a comfortable club or home where you can rest and get recreation, but think of the middle of the night or the early morning, when miners come off a shift and have to trudge mile after mile in freezing weather and have these heavy, dirty and sodden clothes on their backs. On behalf of the miners who have to endure these conditions, I demand that we take the most urgent steps to get baths at every pit-head.
I want now to say a word or two about the position that exists and to present the problem. The Welfare Fund was instituted by the Mining Industry Act of 1920, which imposed a levy of a 1d. a ton on the coal industry. Later the levy was reduced from a 1d. to a ½d. Without going into any detail I can state that in 1935 the output levy of a ½d. a ton produced £483,353, the royalty levy of a 1s. in the pound produced £176,000, and the interest on money lying unused in the Welfare Committee's Fund was £77,235, making a total of £736,588. It was competent for the committee to allocate money for and to instal pit-head baths, but from 1920 to 1926 only £121,463 had been allocated for baths out of a total of £4,500,000. The 1926 Act imposed upon the Central Committee the specific duty of securing as far as reasonably practicable the provisions of pit-head baths at all coal mines and required that the proceeds of the royalty levy should be used for that purpose. The 1934 Act laid it down that a sum would be added to the fund that came from the 1s. on the royalties, providing a total of £375,000 annually for the purpose of installing baths. That is the fund that the Welfare Committee now has to work for baths. This sum of £375,000

is allocated to the districts in proportion to the amount that comes in from those districts to the general fund.
I do not want to go into details as to the installations that have been carried out throughout the country. I want to get at the problem that confronts us, and the best way to do that is to take my own particular area, West Fife. Other speakers can bring out the particular features affecting their areas. According to the particulars I have been able to get pit-head baths have been installed in the following pits in Fife: Lockhead, with accommodation for 802; Blairhall, 704; Devan, 616; Dysart, 864; Lumphinnans, 608; Aitken, 912; Minto, 840. Installations under construction are: Michael pit, 2,552; Bowhill, 1,512; and Blairhall extension, 352. Installations in preparation are at Wellesley pit, 1,800; and Brora, 24. Here is the difficulty: There have been applications received by the central Welfare Committee from the Lindsay pit, which employs 608 men; from the Valleyfield pit, 573 men; Kinglassie, 528 men; Glencraig, 1,260; men; Lochore, 812 men; Fordell, 319 men; Cowdenbeath, 286 men; and Tillicoultry, 69 men. Applications for baths have been received from these pits. The Lindsay pit put in its application on 1st March, 1930, more than six years ago. The Valleyfield pit put in its application on 2nd February, 1931; Kinglassie, on 7th December, 1933; Glencraig, 26th September, 1934; Lochore, 28th August, 1935; and so on.
What has the Welfare Committee done? It tells us that as things stand now, with these installations under construction and the installations in preparation in Fife, Fife is absorbing this year very much more than its share of the fund. Each district gets a share in relation to the amount that it is supplying to the general fund. So the Welfare Committee says that the work that is now being carried on is all that can possibly be done in Fife until 1938, and that another installation will be made in 1938. It is too early to say at which pit the installation may be made. Some of the pits that I have enumerated have been waiting for six years, and all of them are undergoing the unnecessary hardships to which I have referred, affecting not only the miners, but the health of their wives and children. All these pits have voted upon the question, and by a


practically unanimous decision have decided for pit-head baths, but they are told that another installation will not be made until 1938, but that it is too early to say which pit will be chosen. It will be 10 years before this series of applications is overcome. Are we going to condemn the miners in these pits to endure these hardships for another 10 years? The miners have urged this question upon me. Many hon. Members have expressed surprise that I should raise such a question when I had an opportunity such as this; they seemed to think that I would make a start with smashing the Constitution.

Mr. FLEMING: My difficulty is to know why the hon. Member wants an inquiry when one has already been held. Will he tell us what information that we have not got he expects to get from another inquiry?

Mr. GALLACHER: I will tell the hon. Member. We are interested in the lives of the miners and the welfare of their womenfolk and children. I would not be a revolutionary if I did not concern myself with them. The miners in my constituency are demanding that something should be done. They are not satisfied with the inquiry of 1934. It is not going to give them the baths they want for another 10 years. I have here a copy of a letter from Newmills written to Mr. Stedman, Secretary of the Miners' Welfare Committee, in which the writer says:
I have been requested by the workmen employed at Valleyfield Colliery, belonging to the Fife Coal Company, to write you and ask when baths are likely to be erected at that colliery.
I was also asked to state that some of the sections in this colliery are very wet, and others are very dusty, and the men are of the opinion that these conditions warrant baths to be erected as soon as possible.
The answer is that they will be erected in 10 years time if we are satisfied with the inquiry of 1934. I have another letter from Glencraig, which says:
I am instructed by the members of Glencraig branch of the above union to draw your attention to state of affairs at colliery re pit baths. We took plebiscite in March, 1934; result of same; for 993, against 4. Instructed Minister of Mines about same through Mr. Adamson, late secretary of above union. We were then notified that there was no claim from the

Wilson and Clyde Coal Company till October, 1934, which delayed our application. You might try and press for our advantage on behalf of above members.
They will not get pit baths for 10 years unless we have an immediate inquiry. The Welfare Fund has an annual income of £375,000 which the committee does its best to spend in the most effective way in the construction of baths. I have no fault to find with the committee. I believe that it is working as energetically as possible within the limit of its means, but a peculiar situation arises in connection with it. The committee originally had the whole of the funds, and four-fifths went out to the districts and one-fifth was retained for general purposes in connection with welfare. Then £375,000 was taken away from the General Fund for baths. This means that the General Fund for welfare has become much less, and as they send four-fifths of the fund to the districts, they are left with much less than they hitherto had for general welfare. All the time the administrative expenses are increasing and the staff is increasing. This situation brings all kinds of criticism against the committee which the committee does not deserve.
We want to take the control of the installation of baths out of the hands of the committee and place it in charge of the Mines Department. We want the Department to utilise the £375,000 by capitalising it at once instead of utilising it each year for 10 years. I want the Mines Department to take up this matter now. When the railway companies wanted to reconstruct their railways they asked for a loan and cheap money, and the Government backed a loan of £27,000,000. Why cannot the Minister of Mines go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an interest free loan to the amount of 10 years' income of this fund? That would mean a loan of £3,750,000. The inquiry that would have to take place in connection with it could be very short and the work could be got on with quickly. The income of £375,000 for the fund could be used each year to repay the loan. No one would lose on the loan and it would result in one of the biggest and best national work schemes that could be put into operation.
I ask the Minister of Mines to make an inquiry with which the Ministers of Labour and Health are associated. The


urgent need exists, and it is a crime against the miners if we delay a moment longer than is necessary. Unemployed men are all over the country ready to go on the job. Is the Minister of Mines prepared to consider capitalising that income so that unemployed men can be given work? The Minister of Labour would approve of that. Will he do it so that the women can be saved from unnecessary drudgery, so that the homes may be bright and clean, and so that the children may be saved from the risk of disease? The Minister of Health would approve of that. I ask the Secretary for Mines to take this up, so that some of the sympathy which is often expressed for miners may be shown in a practical way. Do not let us delay. If ever there were a works' scheme that would give a large measure of satisfaction, this is one. I am asking that a great and useful community shall be considered, and that anything that we can do will be done to wipe out this blot, not on the miners, but on those of us who have the opportunity and the responsibility for making a reform which none of us should hesitate to put our hands to. I commend the Motion to the House.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. WATSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not intend to cover much of the ground which the Mover has covered. He began his speech by drawing attention to the condition in which the miner is when he leaves his work, and the need for enabling him to go to and from his work in a much more comfortable condition than he does at the present time where no baths are provided. We have to realise that this question is not in the position in which it was some years ago. Something has been done, but we on this side of the House complain is that enough has not been done, and is not being done. The battle of the baths has been fought and won. Nobody is prepared to deny nowadays that baths are a necessity and ought to be part of the colliery equipment. When I recollect the beginning of this agitation, my mind carries me much further back than the legislation that has been passed. I remember the time when there were few advocates of baths at the pit-head outside an organisation called the Women's Labour League, and I want

to pay my tribute to the work that was done by that body to popularise the need for baths at the pit-head long before the question reached this House. The agitation was carried on outside by the workers, and it was carried on mainly in the interests of the women. There is one name in particular that comes to mind when we are discussing this matter, that of Katherine Bruce Glasier, who did an extraordinary work in stirring the women to an agitation for pit baths. Only after the agitation had been carried on outside for many years did it reach the Floor of this House.
It was first dealt with here in 1911, when we passed a Coal Mines Act, in Section 77 of which there was the first legislative enactment for the provision of pit-head baths. That legislation made it obligatory upon colliery owners to provide baths. There was to be a ballot of the men, and if two-thirds of those taking part in the ballot were in favour of baths, it was the duty of the colliery owners to provide them. There were certain restrictions. If a colliery employed fewer than 100 men baths need not be provided. If the cost of maintenance was more than 3d. per week per man, then, again, baths need not be provided. It is not surprising that little was done until the next Measure came before this House in 1920. In the interval we had passed through the War, but there was another thing besides the War which kept back the installation of baths, and that was a very considerable body of opposition from the miners themselves. Let us be perfectly frank about it, and I speak as a miner. The miners themselves were very hostile to the idea of baths at the pit-head. I can remember occasions when Bob Smillie, a man to whom my hon. Friend referred earlier, has spoken at miners' meetings which were enthusiastic about all the other subjects, but when Bob Smillie, who was keen on pit-head baths, referred to the need for the miner leaving the dirt at the pithead before he went home, there were no cheers; very often jeers instead.
But 1920 changed the situation to a very considerable extent. The legislation passed in that year created the Mines Department, set up the welfare scheme, and made provision for the welfare levy and other matters in connection with miners' welfare apart from baths. It is interesting to follow the legislation


which has been passed by this House dealing with this matter, which shows the progress which has been made and explains to a considerable extent the reason for the Motion before us. As I say, the Mining Industry Act, 1920, set up the Mines Department and gave us the Welfare Fund. Section 20 of that Act is a very interesting one, because it explains the scope of the Welfare Committee's activities. It states:
There shall be constituted a fund to be applied for such purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation, and conditions of living of workers in or about coal mines and with mining education and research.
It gave extensive powers to the Welfare Committee, and I am pleased to say that the committee, with the limitations which were placed upon it, has done excellent work since it has been in existence. That Act gave us a fund which was raised by an output levy of 1d. per ton, and the committee which was appointed under that Act consisted of five persons, one representing the owners, one representing the Miners' Federation, and three assessors who were appointed by the Minister of Health, the President of the Board of Education, and the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was the first Miners' Welfare Committee.
Then we come to the Act of 1925. The first scheme was to be in operation for only five years, and the Act of 1925 gave us another five years' grace and increased the number of the committee from five to seven, there being one additional representative of the Mining Association and another of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. In the next year, 1926, there was another interesting development. An Act passed then really gave us our baths fund. It created a, definite fund to be used for the provision of baths at the pit-head. Hon. Members who are not connected with mining constituencies need not think that we have come to the House with great schemes calling for a large expenditure of public money. We have not come asking for public money, the provision has already been made, and if it is unsatisfactory it can be improved under Acts of Parliament which have already been passed. The Welfare Fund was created out of the 1d. per ton on output, but the baths fund was created by the imposition of a levy on mining

royalties. The sum of 1s. in the pound on mining royalties was to be set aside for baths at the pit-head. By the 1926 Act, we had again a change in the number of the members of the committee. An additional representative was given to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and one for those who were called upon to pay the mining royalties.
Then we come to the Act of 1934. Reference to that is made in the Amendment. I want to ask the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) whether he is so very proud of at least a part of that Act. It is true that it extended the period of operation of the scheme for another 16 years, and that was all to the good, because it gave an opportunity for planning ahead, but there was one Section in that Act which reduced the output levy to the Welfare Fund from 1d. to ½d. and I doubt very much whether that is a change in the law for which the hon. Member feels that he can take a great deal of credit. At any rate it was not a change in the interests of the Welfare Committee or of the miners, and the reduction was bitterly opposed by the miners. There was another important Section in that Act. Like most of the Acts we get from a Tory Government there were some good things in it and some bad, and the next Section was a particularly good one. Section 3 stabilised the baths fund at £375,000 a year. It gave the Welfare Committee power to take from the general fund money for the purpose of making up the baths fund to £375,000 a year.
Therefore, the Welfare Committee have two specific duties to perform. They have to supervise the general work of the district welfare committees in regard to recreation—and I am pleased to say that a considerable sum has been spent on recreation—and education, health provisions and research. All these things are supervised by the Welfare Committee in addition to looking after the provision of baths at the pit-head. My hon. Friend has already referred to what happened to the Welfare Fund in order to make up this £375,000 for baths. Those of us who are keen on baths are prepared to agree to the sacrificing of the general fund to a certain extent. It is unfortunate, but it has to be done. It would have been very much easier had the Government in 1934 allowed the levy


to continue at 1d. per ton. So long as that levy was kept intact there was a substantial sum with which the Welfare Committee could not only carry on the general work under the scheme but make provision for baths as well. Had that sum remained intact this Motion would have been unnecessary, or to a large extent unnecessary, because while a levy of 1d. per ton was imposed the Welfare Fund had an income of round about £1,000,000 a year, and with that the committee could do a considerable amount of work.
The reduction to ½d. reduced the income to between £400,000 and £500,000 per year, and now that a demand for baths is coming from all parts of the country the Welfare Committee find themselves crippled in their work. In order to make up the £375,000 the Welfare Committee had to take from the general fund £173,216 which in addition to the £25,000 interest and the sum from mining royalties made up £375,000. All that was received from the royalties levy during 1935 was £176,000, and I submit that that is not sufficient to erect baths in 25 mining districts in Great Britain, and that there is a case for this Motion. It may be that it is open to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines to say whether or not the sum should be increased. That would require legislation, because it was said in the Act of Parliament that £375,000 a year was to be spent on the provision of baths. A sum of £173,000 has had to come out of that amount which, we say, should be reserved for other purposes which are required in the mining areas. It is not enough to provide baths at the pit-head. In fairness to the Welfare Committee it must be said that a great deal has been done in the provision of halls, institutes, recreation grounds and other improvements in the condition of affairs in the mining areas. Up to 1935, £3,314,222 had been accumulated in the baths fund, and that fund has been used for the provision of baths in various parts of the country.
It is interesting to glance at the figures in connection with the welfare part of the work, apart from the baths fund. Since the Welfare Fund was instituted in 1920, nearly £12,500,000 has been collected. It is to the credit of the coal-owners that the amount which has had to be written off is comparatively small.

It is only fair to say that the coalowners have joined with the men in trying to make the scheme a success. I believe it is the general feeling that they have wanted to make the scheme as much a success as possible. This afternoon we are trying to get an understanding between the two sides as to how this work may be speeded up. While baths have been provided to a considerable extent since 1920, about one half of the number of miners in this country have not yet been provided with bathing accommodation. It is true that over 300,000 miners can go to pit-head baths and make themselves clean and respectable before they go home, but there are between 700,000 and 800,000 miners at work in this country, and from the comparison of these figures we may see how much remains to be done before all the miners can have an opportunity of bathing themselves at the pit-heads. I hope that a scheme will be devised, and that the Department of Mines will take the matter into serious consideration and endeavour to have more bathing accommodation provided.
According to the report of the Welfare Committee for 1935, there were 194 installations, accommodating 258,984 men, and 538 women; 17 more installations were planned, to accommodate nearly 21,000 men and 54 women. In addition to that there were 33 installations, for 24,663 men, which had not been provided or built with the aid of the Welfare Committee. Some of those were probably started before the existence of the welfare scheme, in some cases by more enlightened coalowners who wished to make provision for their men being bathed at the pit-head. Those figures give us a total of only 244 baths for just over 300,000 men, and in view of the number of miners employed they mean that half the work is not yet done. If we go on at the present rate, it will be ten years before baths are provided at some of the collieries. The Miners' Welfare Committee realise their shortcomings and, in the report to which I have already referred, they say that there is
a large unsatisfied demand for baths.
It is the duty of this House to find ways and means of meeting that demand.
With regard to the men's contributions, they make no complaint about contributing what is required in order to run the baths and make them a success. The


men are provided with soap, towel and the water required, and they pay a contribution. It is interesting to note from the report of the Welfare Committee that only two colliery companies bear the whole of the cost. We make no complaint about that, nor do I think that the miners complain about the charge which is made. In many cases they contribute from 2½d. to a 1s. The biggest number contribute 6d. a week, which is deducted from the men's wages for the baths service. There are 67 installations to which the men contribute 6d. per week, and I believe they do not grudge it. The owners also make their contribution and in many cases give the steam, electricity and coal for heating the water, and in some cases they even contribute cash in order to make the baths a success.
When we look at the men's side of the matter we see the biggest change. I have referred to the hostility which existed among the men to bathing themselves at the pit-head. At the time to which I referred, when the women particularly were carrying on the agitation, you would hear men saying quite seriously that it was a very bad thing for them to have their backs washed every day because it weakened their backs. That was on a level with the coal-owners' argument that children had to be taken into the pits young, in order to get the stoop that was necessary for the work. Where baths are provided, we are told that 90 per cent. of the men are willing and anxious to use them. In some places there are not enough baths and more accommodation is required, not always in the form of cubicles in which the men can wash themselves. This is true at some of the baths erected during the last few years, and now found to be to small to meet requirements. Of the men employed, 90 per cent. use the baths; it may be that some of the older ones still stick to their prejudices and refuse to do so, but on the whole the scheme has been a. success. The fact that colliery after colliery is balloting in favour of pit-head baths is creating a problem of ways and means of getting the baths erected in the speediest possible way. On the financial side, the baths have been 'a success. The Committee tell us that up to the end of 1935 there was a credit balance of over £41,000, the result of the successful running of these baths.
The Act of 1911 said that where there were fewer than 100 men employed at a colliery, it was inadvisable to erect baths, or if the lease of the colliery was to expire within 10 years. There may be something to be said for that, but the Welfare Committee is facing the provision of baths at collieries where there are only 126 men employed. Their activities give us hope that sooner or later there will be baths at almost all the collieries in the country. There are very few collieries where fewer than 100 men are employed, and the Welfare Committee are tackling the job of providing baths at the comparatively small collieries. I would warn the Secretary for Mines—and I hope that he will pass the warning to the Welfare Committee—that there should be no proposals for making the smaller installations consist just of a common bathing room without cubicles. I thought the last report indicated that these smaller installations should have an open bathing room where men could go to bath themselves, and not the present system of a separate cubicle for each man. We want no prejudice raised on the part of the men about using pit-head baths, and no step could be taken that would lead in that direction more effectively than to ask the men to go into a big hall where each of them would bath himself just as he could.
The arrangements that have been made up to now are splendid. The men come from their homes in the morning with their comfortable home clothes on, and they go into the pit-head baths where they take off their clothes. Then they pass into that part of the chamber where their pit clothes are. Their clothes have been there during the whole night, or the whole day, as the case may be, and are dry. In most cases the clothes were wet, if not from working in wet places, then with sweat. Few miners to-day do not sweat a considerable amount before the end of their shift. Such men can now put on dry clothes before they are required to go to their shift. If it is the other way round, they leave the pit and go int othe part of the building where their pit clothes are put into a locker. Each man has a locker to himself and his clothes are hung up in such a way that they are dry before they are required again on the next shift. The miner goes into a cubicle where he can have a shower bath and can make himself as respectable


as any Member of this House. After a few minutes he can come out a new man, and a great deal better for having had a shower bath. Then he goes into the chamber where his home clothes are, and in a few minutes he comes out like the gentleman he is. There is no going home in an omnibus, tramcar or train, afraid to touch anybody and with everybody afraid to touch him.
I urge that consideration on the Minister for the following reason in particular. Colliery companies in the past, when they put down shafts, erected a certain number of houses—perhaps 200 or 300—round about the shaft, thus giving us our colliery village. To-day the colliery companies are not troubling so much to build houses for their workers, but are leaving that job to the local authority, and the result is that we have men travelling four, five and six miles to their work, by tram, omnibus or cycle, so that the provision of baths at the pithead is more than ever required. It was all very well when the colliery village was round about the pit, and the man could get from his work to his home in five or ten minutes at the outside, but, now that the men have to travel these long distances, bathing accommodation is all the more urgently required. I hope the result of this discussion will be that a way will be found to complete this provision.
The Motion asks for an inquiry as to how the sum of £375,000 can be augmented in order to provide baths at the pithead. I am not prepared to support the contention of the Mover that this matter should be taken out of the hands of the Welfare Committee and placed in the hands of the Mines Department; I want it to be kept in the hands of the Welfare Committee, and the money to be placed in the hands of the Welfare Committee, so that they may go on with the construction of baths as speedily as they possibly can. At this time, when money can be borrowed at a comparatively low rate of interest, why should we have to wait eight or ten years before baths can be provided at some of these collieries? A scheme ought to be devised, as is suggested in the Motion, for raising a sum of money, to be placed in the hands of the Welfare Committee, that will be sufficient to provide bathing accommodation at the collieries for that portion of

the mining population who are not yet provided with it. In addition to the actual provision of baths, canteens are required. It is true that in some of the later bath schemes canteens are provided, and, now that men are travelling, as I have already said, long distances to their work, it is a great boon to them if they can have a cup of tea or coffee or something else before they go to their homes. I suggest that that matter should be inquired into as well, because undoubtedly, where canteens are not provided, the baths are not as good and efficient as they otherwise would be.
Despite the fact that there is an Amendment on the Paper, I hope we shall find both sides of the House in thorough agreement as to the necessity for such schemes. The only question that appears to separate us at the moment is whether this fund of £375,000 should be allowed to drag on for a number of years, or whether within a comparatively short time, say four or five years, all the collieries in Great Britain that require to be provided with baths should have them provided. I hope that the Motion will be carried unanimously, and that we shall find the Minister sympathetic. The statement of the Mover is perfectly true that to-day men are going home from the collieries in a condition in which they ought not to be allowed to go home. Certainly the housewives know the great difference that it makes when their men come home from the pit bathed and in clean clothes, and I hope that the blessing which has been conferred upon some will be conferred upon them all before many years have passed.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS JONES: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while appreciating the great advantages to the mining community resulting from the provision of pit-head baths, is of opinion that the report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry which resulted in special provision for the financing of pit-head bath construction by the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act, 1934, provides the House with full and sufficient information on this important subject.
Let me say at once that there is very little in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion with which I am in total disagreement. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), in


putting his Resolution before the House, devoted the bulk of his time to convincing the House of the need of providing baths for workmen at the location of their employment, and most of his arguments in favour of pit-head baths might very well have been applied to the provision of baths for all workmen, whether on building operations, in steelworks, or anywhere else. I have been keen on the provision of pit-head baths from my early days, and no one who knows a colliery district, who has friends among working miners, who may have relatives among colliers, can fail to realise what a terrible disability it is to a miner and to the members of his household if it becomes necessary for him to take his bath in the kitchen at home, very often in front of members of his family and his little children. Those who know anything about the miner's life, the miner's home, his habits or general conditions, cannot for a moment be opposed to this general scheme of pithead baths.
I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for West Fife gave so little credit to the work already accomplished by the Welfare Fund Committee in the provision of pit-head baths. I am glad that the Seconder of the Motion filled in that gap, because anyone who is really interested in this question and has helped in the development of this pit-head baths programme during the last few years must have been impressed, in the first place, by the wonderful enthusiasm of the Welfare Fund Committee, and, furthermore, by the excellent co-operation that has always existed between the mineowners and the miners' representatives in connection with this scheme. I was very interested when the Seconder of the Motion referred to the prejudice of miners themselves against pit-head baths. I know, and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) will know, that in our own home county of Carmarthen the opposition to pit-head baths was terrific among some of his old school friends and mine, but it is amazing how this prejudice has gradually disappeared. The report of the Welfare Fund Committee for 1935 gives the figures which the Seconder of the Motion quoted. Unfortunately, those figures are only from 1930 to 1935, but it is satisfactory to all

who are interested in this particular piece of social welfare work to know that, while in 1930 only 83 per cent. of the bathing accommodation provided at pits in this country was being used by the miners for whom it was provided, by about the end of 1934 the proportion had increased to 90 per cent.
Anyone who is interested in welfare work generally, whether among miners, steelworkers, or any other body of workers, must have followed with great interest the reports of the Miners' Welfare Fund Committee. I read those reports annually, and I can say that they differ very much from ordinary blue-books inasmuch as they appear to be very human documents. What is the latest information? Reference has been made to 1911 and 1912, but let us realise that this pithead baths programme itself, apart from the propaganda which preceded it, only started nine years ago, and the 1935 Report of the Welfare Fund Committee shows that the total credits of the Baths Fund from the date of its institution until the end of December, 1935, amounted to the vast sum of £3,314,222, while by the end of 1935 the sums allocated for pithead baths built, under construction, or in preparation at that date, amounted to £3,277,000 odd; and probably, if we had the figures up to the present date, we should find that between £3,500,000 and £3,750,000 has been set aside for this purpose. I was rather surprised that neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Motion, when they were dealing with the expenditure on pit-head baths, referred to the substantial sum which has also been contributed to the fund from the district funds. If to the figure of £3,277,000 are added the grants made from the district funds, which, after all, represent welfare money which has come from the same source as the rest—

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Are they not already included?

Mr. JONES: I do not think they are; indeed, I am satisfied that my hon. Friend has made an error. He will, however, be able to check the report, and I expect he will have an opportunity of speaking later. If, to the figure of £3,277,000, one adds the grants from the district funds, which amount to £423,000, one finds that during the last nine years £3,700,000 has been taken from the Welfare


Fund and spent on pit-head baths. If the figures for 1936, even up to the end of November, were available, I think it would be found that nearly £4,000,000 has been spent on baths. The Departmental Committee appointed by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) thoroughly investigated this question, and made excellent recommendations. That is accepted by the miners' representatives as well as by those of the mine owners. Arising out of that report the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act was passed in 1934. It enacted that the Welfare Fund Committee should appropriate, in 1934 and succeeding years, from the proceeds of a levy such sum as would, together with the proceeds of the royalties welfare levy for each year, amount to £375,000, which was to be applied to providing pit-head baths. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) referred to the fact that the levy on royalties produced only £176,000. I really cannot see what bearing that has on the development of pit-head baths, because by the 1934 Act power was given to the Welfare Fund Committee to take from other funds to make up the total of £375,000, and the figure for 1935 included £176,000 from the royalty levy, £25,784 from interest on balances and £173,216 from the output levy. The 1934 Act provided for this welfare work a statutory minimum fund of £375,000, and that was the first time the miners were assured of a statutory minimum for this purpose.
I should like to remind the House of the developments that have taken place during the last few years. I am surprised that the Mover of the Motion did not show what had been accomplished. The greater part of his speech would have done very well 10 or 12 years ago if he was trying to convince a House of Commons totally opposed to the whole idea of pit-head baths.

Mr. GALLACHER: Whether it was said 12 years ago or not, everything I say is going on now. The miner goes home in wet clothes and his wife has to undergo all the difficulty and trouble. The question is how to get more money.

Mr. JONES: All I suggest is that it was a good propaganda speech advocating pit-head baths on the assumption that everybody was against him, but he gave very little credit for what had

already been accomplished under the scheme. Up to 1935 accommodation had been provided for 248,000 people. In December, 1935, accommodation existed for 395,000 workpeople employed in or about mines. The hon. Member for Dunfermline pointed out that out of the miners' welfare levy accommodation has been provided for 284,000 people. The difference between that and 304,613 is made up by baths provided from other funds. The Welfare Committee in its report for 1933 visualised pit-head baths for 750,000 miners. I suppose the miners' representatives would be the first to-day to express doubt, in the present state of the industry, whether that may not be too high an estimate of the number for whom baths would have to be provided. From calculations that I have made I am satisfied that by the end of 1938 accommodation will be provided for a minimum of 450,000 mine workers.

Mr. GALLACHER: I gave the names of seven pits in West Fife which have applied for installations, but the Welfare Committee say that Fife has been overspent and they cannot promise another installation until 1938.

Mr. JONES: If I suggest that by the end of 1938 baths will be provided for only 450,000, I am admitting that there will be many still unprovided for. I am not disagreeing with the hon. Member as to what will happen in his constituency. I admit that there is a growing demand amongst miners for more pit-head baths. The 1935 report of the Welfare Committee says that they experienced difficulty at first in persuading collieries to have baths, but to-day there is a large unsatisfied demand which is becoming more and more pressing, and I agree that there is that pressure. What are the factors which make quicker progress difficult? There is the statutory minimum of £375,000, but there are substantial amounts available in the district funds which could not be put to better use than for baths, and one is very glad to see that there is a growing tendency among district committees to devote substantial sums to this purpose. I am very glad to see that the central committee has decided to speed up its programme and has decided to exceed the amount of £375,000. I am satisfied that, while it may not accomplish all that we


should like to see, the step taken by that committee is going to speed up construction during the years 1937 and 1938.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline gave the numbers employed in the industry as between 700,000 and 800,000. The last official figure given was, I think, 752,000. I do not think it will ever be necessary to consider that as the number of workpeople employed in coal mines in the future. All the evidence, unfortunately, points to a decreasing use of coal and a decrease in the numbers employed. When the Welfare Committee have to face the question of the extension of their pit-head baths programme, obviously they will have to consider not only the state of the collieries and the demands for coal, but also the standpoint of the closing down of less efficient pits, the effect of quota on the coal mines, and the threatened policy of compulsory amalgamations in the coal trade. Modern legislation tends to conserve or close down certain pits, to work the most efficient ones and to locate coal production in smaller range. In the 1933 report of the Welfare Committee the position is stated very carefully when they say this:
Before we embark on any baths scheme we require to be assured that not only the mineral resources of the pit give a sufficient expectation of life, but also that it is likely to survive in face of the exigencies of output regulations and of amalgamations, a problem which naturally gives us no little anxiety just now.
Obviously, conditions during the last two years have been such, with the developments taking place, central selling, tightening up of output regulations, and amalgamations, that the position is more difficult still. I am satisfied that the progress made in the provision of pit-head baths, while not satisfactory to me, is at any rate reasonable when we consider the difficulties that the coal industry has been facing during the last few years. The report of the Departmental Committee on the Welfare Fund contains evidence of a very searching inquiry made in 1931. The excellent reports of the Welfare Fund Committee, together with the annual reports of the Chief Inspector of Mines, bring the information on the matter of pit-head baths right up to date.
I move this Amendment not from want of sympathy with pit-head development

or with the programme for its development—I appreciate the pressing need for more baths—but I am satisfied that the Welfare Committee are making reasonable progress in providing them. The district committees, by making grants from the district funds, are showing increased interest in the movement. The continued increase in output, for the year 1935 over 1934 and for 1936 over 1935, gives justification for expecting substantial increases in the income of the Welfare Committee. Even in 1935 the income was up to £76,000. With the complete information available in the Departmental Committee's report, plus the annual reports of the Welfare Committee and the increased or improved financial position of the coal industry generally, I suggest that the work of the Welfare Committee should be allowed to proceed without further interruption, and it is in that spirit, and not in any spirit of antagonism to the scheme generally, that I submit my Amendment to the House.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. ROWLANDS: I beg to second the Amendment, and I do so fully appreciating the importance and desirability of pithead baths. After having worked for 34 years in and about collieries, and having gone home hundreds of times in the condition which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) described, I naturally appreciate the importance and desirability of pit-head baths, and I am sure that every Member of the House desires to see pit-head baths erected at such a speed that facilities will soon be provided for all miners who wish to take advantage of them. But the question before the House is not whether pit-head baths are desirable—it is not the importance of pit-head baths at all—but whether it is advisable for the Ministry to institute an inquiry in order to improve the finances of the fund so as to speed up the erecting of more pit-head baths. That is the question, and the answer depends upon two other questions. First of all, is the progress made in pit-head baths satisfactory, and if so, the other question does not arise, but if not, the next question naturally is, has the Ministry all the information necessary at their disposal to improve the finances, if they deem it advisable, of that particular fund These are the two questions upon which an inquiry depends.
We have heard the history of pit-head baths. The Seconder of the Motion referred to the first Act of Parliament which dealt with pit-head baths, the Act of 1911. That Act, as he rightly said, made it compulsory upon mineowners to erect baths, provided there was a certain majority of miners in favour of pithead baths, and also that they were prepared to shoulder half the burden of their maintenance. There was a proviso that the upkeep should not be more than 3d. a week, which made the Act of Parliament absolutely worthless, and it is significant that from 1911 to 1920 there was not a single pit-head bath erected under the Act. The Seconder of the Motion paid a great tribute to the Women's League for popularising pithead baths. I want to pay tribute to another section of the community as well—to those few coalowners who, before there was any compulsion at all upon them, erected baths for their workers. In 1920, when the Welfare Act was passed, there were 10 pit-head baths in existence in the country, all of which had been erected voluntarily by certain coalowners, and these people must be regarded as the pioneers of pit-head baths at a time when pit-head baths were unpopular with the workmen.

Mr. DENVILLE: I should like to put the hon. Member right by telling him that there were pit-head baths in this country 60 years ago, provided by the mineowners themselves.

Mr. ROWLANDS: I am dealing with those which were in existence in 1920. Since then I understand that another four pit-head baths have been built by voluntary effort on the part of coal-owners. It should be remembered how unpopular pit-head baths really were. Not only were they unpopular among the miners themselves, but even sonic of their leaders had not been convinced that erecting pit-head baths was the best method of utilising the Welfare Fund. The Act dealing with the Welfare Fund was passed in 1920, and it mentioned pithead baths as one of the objects for which the fund could be utilised. Although it was mentioned in that Act, up to 1927, when the 1926 Act came into operation, only 18 pit-head baths had been erected, despite the fact that the income of the fund at that time averaged something like £1,000,000 a year.

We find in 1927 this position: There were 18 baths erected under the Welfare Fund, providing accommodation for 17,857 men, and also 14 baths erected by the owners, providing accommodation for 6,000, with the result that, when the 1926 Act came into operation, the accommodation that existed was for only 94,000 miners.
What has been the result since that time? We have had a tremendous increase in pit-head baths. It is true that the 1926 Act established a special fund for them and that that improved matters considerably, but from, 1927 to the end of 1935 we had increased the accommodation from 24,000 to 304,613 miners. This shows that accommodation had been provided at the rate of 35,000 a year during those eight years. If we take the year 1935 on its own, we find that the achievement during that year was considerably greater than during any other particular year. According to the Welfare Fund report the baths completed during that year numbered 14, providing accommodation for 18,540; baths under construction 26, providing accommodation for 39,846; and baths planned, with money allocated 17, providing accommodation for 20,966. Consequently, the work in connection with pit-head baths for the year 1935—new baths completed, under consideration and planned—amounted to 57, providing accommodation for 79,316.
I think that everybody must admit that this is a considerable advancement upon previous years. Although we would all like to see pit-head baths put up as soon as possible, if this rate were maintained, in a, very few years we should have the accommodation of pithead baths provided for all the needs of the miners. The Welfare Committee have their reservations, and there are a large number of collieries which have seen their best days and have not a very long life before them, and it would be folly to erect pit-head baths at collieries which will not survive for more than five or six years. Taking all these things into consideration, the progress that has been made has been very satisfactory indeed. We have, as the Mover of the Amendment said, reasons to believe that the Welfare Committee will speed up the erection of baths. In the report we find these words:
At first we experienced difficulty in persuading collieries to have baths, but those erected so proved their value that to-day


there is a large unsatisfied demand which is becoming more and more pressing. We have, therefore, given serious consideration to the possibility of speeding up the building work, and we have taken steps to increase the number of baths to be built in the next two years or so by regulating our commitments in relation to the cash balance instead of the balance of credits over allocations.
In addition the report states that several district committees recommend the use of some of their district fund money to supplement the baths fund. The very fact that the Committee of inquiry which reported in January, 1933, based their finances upon the output of 200,000,000 tons, which is at least, 20,000,000 tons less than what it is at the present time, shows that they under-estimated their finances. The fact that £77,000 more than was anticipated had come to the funds of the districts enabled them to make a contribution to the baths fund if they so wished.
It may be said that that progress, although very good, is not as good as we want it to be, but I would remind the House that it is only four years since the Committee reported. The report was issued in January, 1933, and we are nearly in January, 1937. The Committee went extensively into the whole question, and before voting for the establishment of a new Committee I should like to know from those who are asking for an inquiry what information they expect the inquiry to obtain which is not already available. We know what the levy for the Welfare Fund amounts to. If it is the contention of hon. Members opposite that the levy ought to be doubled, then the Ministry will know exactly what doubling the levy would mean. If, on the other hand, it is intended to increase the levy on royalties, that could be easily calculated. The facts are already at the disposal of the Ministry. If they come to the conclusion that it is inadvisable to augment the fund from any further burden on the industry itself and they think it advisable to subsidise the industry, they are in a better position than anybody else to know how to do that.
I submit that no case has been made out for demanding an inquiry on this question, because all the information necessary is at the disposal of the Ministry at the present time. There is one further matter to which I would refer. I

am anxious to know what is going to take place with regard to the levy on mineral royalties after the unification of mining royalties. When the Government take over the royalties, is the Welfare Fund to be assured of the same contribution as it gets at the present time? I should be much obliged if the Minister would tell us what are the intentions of the Government on that point.

5.49 p.m.

Sir HUGH SEELY: I am glad that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has brought this question forward and given us an opportunity of debating it. I support very strongly the Motion as it stands, and I have listened carefully to the two speeches in favour of the Amendment to try and find out why it was placed on the Order Paper. As far as I can find out from the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. L. Jones) his contention is that the further inquiry is not necessary because under the quota system fewer men are being employed every year in the coal trade. I presume thrfor that, although he admitted we are not getting pit baths quickly enough, his idea would be that we should let the number of men come down to fit in with the number of baths. If the question was as simple as that one might argue in favour of it. What the quota has done in so many cases has been that men have been working shorter time at certain pits, and we have to realise that fewer men, because of mechanical mining, are employed in certain pits. Nevertheless, those same pits, those holes in the ground, remain just the same, and the need for the pit baths belongs to the pit itself and not to the number of men who may be employed there. A pit employing a total of 1,000 men might shrink to 500 men, but you would still need the pit baths, and you cannot assume that the problem could be solved in the way suggested.
The hon. Member—and I must admire him for his cleverness—avoided letting the cat out of the bag, but the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) did so slightly. One has a fear that the reason why the Amendment was put down was that perhaps the levy for welfare might go up to 1d., whereas it has come down to ½d. Anyone who has had anything to do with this pit baths question realises that there has been a considerable change in the situation. At


one of the pits with which I am concerned we have a pit bath which is now being finished, but there are four other pits where we have not baths. On the first occasion it was with the greatest difficulty that we could get the idea accepted because, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) pointed out, there were many fears on the part of the men. It used to be said that you might get nystagmus from washing the back of your neck. There were all sorts of fears, and the men did not like the baths at first, but we find that that attitude has change and there is now a 100 per cent. demand. We have now a demand from all the other collieries, and that demand is so clear that it ought to be satisfied.
It is undesirable that there should be men living alongside each other, some of them working at pits where they have the advantage of baths and others at pits where they have not baths. Those who have the advantage of the baths are fully convinced of the value of them and their demand, as I say, is now practically 100 per cent. but, unfortunately, the finance which was provided for by the former committee is inadequate to deal with the demand. I am on the Welfare Committee and I know what is happening there and the difficulty there is in finding the money that we require to put up the baths, because we are definitely told that there is not sufficient money available. Since the inquiry was held circumstances have changed, and the time is now ripe for another inquiry to see what can be done. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline that it will have to be done by capital expenditure as a whole and not merely as this yearly arrangement is going on at the present time.
To-day if you want to set up baths it takes a long time, but if baths were provided at practically every pit it could be clone at less capital cost. The demand for an inquiry ought to be granted, and I am certain that if the lion. Members who support the Amendment would go into the question carefully and see how the demand for baths is concerned with the difficulty of finance they would not press their Amendment to a Division.

Mr. FLEMING: Will the hon. Member try to answer the question that I put to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)? What fresh information does

he expect to obtain from the further inquiry which is asked for in the Motion?

Sir H. SEELY: The inquiry is needed because the demand has altered so much, and because the finance of £375,000 which was laid down before is not sufficient to deal with the demand. An inquiry is important. A point has been raised about the shrinkage of the number of men in the pits, but that does not affect the issue. It is not simply a question of providing for 750,000 men, but of providing for the pits themselves. A great deal of information might be got through an inquiry, especially as opinion has changed so much in the last three or four years.

5.55 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): We are much indebted to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) for raising this matter. It involves great human issues of importance to anyone who has the interests of the mining industry at heart. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for the very handsome tribute that he pays in his Motion to the general system under which we live. I hardly expected from the Communist party the statement: "In view of the advance that is taking place in housing, in health and in hygiene." That is a perfectly general statement in regard to our national affairs, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for it. He argued, and the point has been further dealt with by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), for an inquiry on the best method of amplifying the finances at the disposal of the Welfare Committee, in order that pit-head baths may be established as a recognised part of the equipment of the mines of this country. The speeches that we have heard since the speech of the hon. Member have taken it for granted that everybody wants baths and that their popularity is unquestioned. If that is the case I am very glad that it should be so, but it has not always been the case. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion pointed that out. Leaving aside the Act of 1911, it is interesting to note that in the period between the passing of the 1920 Act and 1026, when the funds available for welfare under that legislation amounted to some £4,500,000, only some £120,000 was spent for the purpose of baths.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: rose—

Captain CROOKSHANK: I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt me.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: You are misrepresenting the position.

Captain CROOKSHANK: No. What I am saying is irrespective of who might have spent the money. It would have been possible to have spent more money on pit-head baths at that time and I am only trying to show the wonderful change that there has been in the general outlook on this question. I think the hon. Member opposite himself pointed out that only some £120,000 was spent on baths in the period from 1920 to 1926 to which I have referred, during which some £4,500,000 was used for welfare work. There has been a gradually increasing demand for baths. In the years 1927–29—this is information which is in the Welfare Committee's Annual Report for 1933—only 34 per cent. of the Committee's offers for this purpose were accepted. To-day the situation is different. In 1932–33 the proportion of the offers made which were accepted rose to 74 per cent., and now I understand that the acceptance of a proposal is virtually automatic. That is a great change that has come about, and I welcome it. In saying that, we ought to realise that the mining community owe a debt of gratitude to the Welfare Committee and their staff for all that they have done in this direction. In the early days they were faced with a much less satisfactory response than they get now.
I do not propose to go into figures in detail except as to the position in which it is at the moment. The number of baths provided by the Miners' Welfare Committee up to 10th November of this year were, opened 182, building 34, a total of 216, with accommodation for 287,000 persons. Over and above that there have been or are being tendered for before the end of the present year 25 more baths, or a total of 241 baths built, building or being tendered for. It must be recognised that building and opening a pithead bath is a somewhat slow process, and in the Committee's report for 1935 hon. Members will find some of the difficulties which inevitably occur, and which would occur even if there were ten times the amount of money available. Diffi-

culties arise which are outside the control of the Welfare Committee altogether. For instance, water supply which may be difficult to obtain, the disposal of drainage may have to be negotiated with local authorities, then negotiations are often necessary with regard to the transfer of the site of the baths, and terms have also to be settled with regard to the supply of electricity and steam; and when you have a scheme in what appears to be its final form it sometimes happens that alterations have to be made owing to changes in the colliery company's policy or because more lockers are required than have been provided for. The provision of pit-head baths is not a matter of five minutes.
The object of the Motion is, I understand, that there should be an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient money available. On that point may I say that since 1934 there has been £375,000 a year going automatically into the Baths Fund, and building contracts have been placed up to that amount. But a long period elapses between the starting of a contract and the time when the final payment is made, and that means that there is a considerable cash balance on the Baths Fund account available in the hands of the Welfare Committee. As is stated in their report for 1935, the Committee have therefore had under consideration the speeding up of the programme by making use of this cash balance. They have come to the conclusion that it would be possible to place contracts up to the value of £600,000 a year for each of the next two years instead of £375,000 a year. Worked out in terms of pithead baths I am informed that the result of this decision is that in addition to the figures of 182 baths opened, 34 building and 25 tendered for by the end of this year there would be added by the end of 1938 about 40 baths for which negotiations have already been started, and some 55 further baths, negotiations for which have not yet been started. This would bring the total by the end of 1938 up to, say, 336 baths with accommodation for some 425,000 persons. That envisages considerable acceleration. The expenditure concerned runs into rather big figures.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is that any satisfaction at all to the great masses of miners who are pleading and begging for these baths and who will not get them for many years to come?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I would not say for many years. It means that in the next period the total number of baths provided will accommodate some 425,000 persons, whereas the present number of miners for whom there is this accommodation built or building is 287,000. That is an increase of some 138,000 miners.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Will you tell me where you are going to get this £600,000 from?

Captain CROOKSHANK: In part it is the unexpended cash balance which the Committee have at the moment. There has always been at their disposal a large sum which has been allocated but not actually expended. The hon. Member need have no fears as to the financial purity of the transaction.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Does it involve taking a larger grant from the general welfare fund?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Not as I understand it. They will be spending at a greater rate, indeed, I think it would allow them to provide baths at about-the maximum speed possible. It will be recognised that there is an economic limit of speed at which you can build. If you suddenly start an enormous emergency programme one inevitable result is that there will be shortage of many things which you require, and then the costs will rise. I think that the Committee who have had 10 years' experience are satisfied that the rate they have in mind, ad expenditure of £600,000 per annum, is towards the maximum from the point of view of economic development having in view the planning of buildings, the design of suitable buildings and questions of maintenance and management, and, above all, possible changes in the industry. They are satisfied that they can work at this rate to the best advantage of everybody concerned.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) suggested that we might get more money by capitalising the income. The figures I have given show that it is

not a shortage of money which is holding up the programme. If at this moment you had any number of millions of pounds of money at the disposal of the Miners' Welfare Committee for pit-head baths they would not be able to spend it at more than a certain rate. The rate of expenditure is governed by being able to make proper arrangements and deciding where the baths can be most suitably built and various other details. If the income were capitalised this would involve interest charges under the system under which we are living at present, and, therefore, there would be some addition to the cost on that ground. Probably the Committee could hardly make use of any larger figure than they have in hand at the moment. The other reason for an inquiry presumably is that we have not all the information at present that is necessary. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) has pointed out that if the contention is that the levy should be raised or doubled the information could quite easily be calculated from the figures which are at our disposal. That is true. The Welfare Committee has an enormous amount of information on this subject and so has my Department.
One of the things which has emerged from the Debate is the co-operation which now exists between mineowners and mineworkers on this subject. That is a good reason why there should be no further inquiry. There is now a Joint Consultative Committee for the Coal Mining Industry, and if coalowners and mineworkers are in such hearty co-operation on this subject then, obviously, if they thought that something further should be done they would have made representations. It must not also be forgotten that the Miners' Welfare Committee itself has on it a large majority of persons connected with the mining industry. The Miners' Welfare Committee consists of nine persons; an independent chairman, two independent members, two persons who can speak for the Mining Association, one for the royalty owners, and three representing the Mineworkers' Federation. If it was lack of money which was holding up the programme no doubt we should have heard from this committee. The three representatives of the Mineworkers' Federation, headed by their President, if they had thought that


representations should be made, or that there should be a demand for an inquiry, would have made those representations.
If the matter is pressed to a Division I shall support the hon. Member against a further inquiry because I think all the information is available. The Committee as I have said is proposing to speed up its annual programme during the next two years from £375,000 to £600,000. The Departmental Committee which reported in December, 1932, and went into the matter most carefully, if they had thought it necessary to make different representations in regard to the sum of money to be allocated for pit-head baths, they could have done so; it was open to them to have done so. The recommendation of the committee was
that, owing to the present economic depression, the output levy should be reduced to ½d. per ton of coal raised.
As a result of that, the amount available in the districts out of which grants might have been made was reduced. The committe further recommended that the levy
should be continued for twenty years, but if and when the financial state of the industry permits, the amount should be increased.
That recommendation was accepted at the time, and still holds good. When the general financial position of the industry permits, the question can and will no doubt be opened. I am not so sure that this is the moment at which it would be wise to reopen the question of the levy. I think most of us who desire to see the general financial position of the industry improved would say that the first and most important thing at the moment—in accordance with the general policy accepted during the last year—is to try to bring about circumstances which will enable an improvement to take place in wages position in the industry. That is the paramount question at the moment. However, the recommendation of the committee stands, and if and when the financial position of the industry permits, the recommendation still is that the amount should be increased. The amount referred to is not the amount of the Baths Fund as such, but the general amount out of which more might or might not be devoted to this particular purpose.
We are indeed grateful to the hon. Member for raising this matter, and I am sure the Miners' Welfare Committee

will be, for, after all, the Committee are glad to hear expressed in this House in all quarters feelings and opinions which they cannot get in any other way. No doubt the points which have been made in this Debate will be carefully considered by the Committee. Here let me make it clear that the Secretary for Mines has no statutory responsibility in the way of enforcing anything. The Committee is an independent statutory body, composed, largely—in the proportion of six to nine—of representatives and spokesmen of the industry itself. My statutory function is to see that they do not spend money on things which are not covered by legislation passed in this House. Therefore, the whole question of pit-head baths is one for the Committee to deal with at their own discretion, and I am sure they will appreciate what has been said in the House this afternoon.
In conclusion, let me repeat that it is not really a shortage of money that is holding up any programmes. That is shown by the decision which has been taken to increase the rate of building during the next two years, with the result that accommodation is to be provided for a total of some 425,000 persons. I do not think I need reply to the other points that have been raised, for I know that other hon. Members wish to speak; but if in the course of the Debate any questions are asked for which an answer is required, either the 'Welfare Committee will reply to them, or I shall see that answers are sent through my Department.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. WHITELEY: The only pleasing thing revealed by the Minister's speech is the fact that there is to be a speeding up in the building of pit-head baths in 1937 and 1938 to the extent of £600,000. That shows the folly of the reduction of the welfare levy, for if that levy had not been reduced there probably would not have been any need for the Motion which is on the Order Paper to-day. Personally, I am glad that Motion has been moved, for it enables us to see what is in the minds of hon. Members. It has drawn forth an Amendment which, in essence, calls for a standstill policy, and implies that the present policy regarding the building of pit-head baths is sufficient. There is no hon. Member who would to-day take the position that we should not build pit-head baths, but


apparently some hon. Members are prepared to take the position that the present speed of building them is sufficient, owing to lack of money. Let me say frankly that if there is a desire on the part of hon. Members and the Government, there are no difficulties that could not be surmounted in order to meet the needs and requirements of the miners and their wives in this country.
It is no use saying that the water supply, questions of drainage and the exact site of particular pit-head baths are difficulties which delay and prevent to any very great degree the erection of pit-head baths in some particular area. If there were a real desire to build these baths, the difficulties could be overcome, and if hon. Members were sincere, they would help us to overcome the difficulties. As a matter of fact, if they were really sincere, many of the difficulties would not arise as we find them arising to-day. Some people may be pleased with the progress made in the building of pit-head baths, but let us examine the position. In Durham, according to a report which I have read, there are 16 baths built and three in course of construction; that is to say, 19 pit-head baths in a county in which there are 200 collieries. It is true that some of those collieries are closed at the present time, but 19 pit-head baths in Durham is not a reasonable proportion. When we look at. the position in the whole of the country, on the basis of the figures given by the Secretary for Mines to-day, the total is 241. That is not a satisfactory number after 10 years of welfare work, and again it proves that the reduction of the levy was an act of real folly.
I wonder whether hon. Members opposite ever consider this problem from its real standpoint. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) spoke of having actually worked in mines over a long period of years. In that case, he must know the difficulties that exist in the colliery villages. I think every hon. Member will agree with the spirit in which the Motion was moved and seconded. We had a portrayal of family life and of the mother having to provide baths in one living room for the male members of the household who are working in the pit, which creates very great difficulties and does away with a great amount of the comfort that the other

members of the household ought to enjoy, in addition to making the work of the mother extremely arduous. All that is not past history, but something which is happening at the present time. When those things were being related to the House, they brought to my mind my own experiences. At my own home, there were five who worked in the pit, although fortunately my time was very short, and my mother had to provide baths for and look after five male members, who had to bathe every day when they came home. She was not one of those superstitious women, but believed in seeing that the backs were really washed, and did it herself. I sometimes wonder how much more real enjoyment we should have got out of life had there been a pit-head bath at the colliery in which we worked and she had been able to avoid all that slavish work. As a matter of fact, at that particular colliery there is no pit-head bath to-day.
There is another fact to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. Members. There is not a Member in the House who, after a day's work in the pit, would like to have to crush into a bus and probably go three or four miles before getting to his home. In those buses one sees tired men corning from the pit, having to stand up, holding a strap, because they will not occupy a seat owing to their feeling that if they do so their dirty clothes will make it difficult for the other passengers, or, if they sit down, the other people will not like to do so because they want to keep their clothes clean. Those are some of the things that must be borne in mind when we are pressing for a speeding up in the building of pit-head baths. I remember that the first time I ever saw a pit-head bath was at Atherton Colliery in Lancashire, and I was very much impressed by it. The next time I saw one was in Germany. The striking thing is that in collieries where these baths exist, the men go to work in a reasonable way and return from work in a reasonable way. They are like ordinary citizens, and not like some foreign extract that has got into the country by mistake. They are what we would call real men in the fullest sense.
Reference has been made to there having been a good deal of improvement in the sense that many miners now live in


council houses. That is another important point which we should bear in mind when we are talking about the speeding up of the building of pit-head baths. The old colliery row was a dismal sort of place for people to live in. Many miners now have the opportunity of occupying council houses, which are much better and much healthier, and we ought to maintain the pleasure of living in those houses by having less dirt taken into them, which would be the case if there were pit-head baths at the collieries. It is true that there is an all-round desire for these baths to-day. We do not want expressions of sympathy, as we have them from time to time, but we want a movement to be set on foot whereby the needs of the miners and their wives shall be made known, and those who are not enjoying these things now shall have the opportunity of enjoying them very soon. Those who are enjoying them are deriving such great benefits from them that others are naturally wanting to follow and have the same sort of privileges and benefits.
For these reasons, I hope the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) will not press his Amendment. I do not want to see the House divide on a question of this sort. There is not much difference between us. I believe we have all the information that is necessary in regard to pit-head baths and the need for them, and from that point of view I do not think it is necessary to have any inquiries made. The point is that hon. Members on this side of the House, like the hon. Member who moved the Motion, arc anxious that every possible thing shall be done to see that any imperiments in the way of the development of pithead baths is removed, so that our people may have the earliest opportunity of enjoying the benefits of those baths. The miners of this country, through the Welfare Fund, have been responsible for improving the social amenities of the mining areas to a tremendous extent. They have erected institutes, constructed welfare grounds, and have done all kinds of things which in the ordinary way would have to be done by local councils and others responsible for the social life of those areas. The miners out of the welfare money have been doing this great work throughout the country. We now ask that Members of this House should agree

unanimously that whatever impediments there are in the way of the miners themselves and their wives and children receiving this benefit should be removed at the earliest opportunity.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: I know that Scottish Members are anxious to leave this question and to get on to the consideration of a Scottish problem, but I wish to intervene in this discussion in order to bring one or two matters to the attention of the Welfare Committee. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines has no power to tell them what to do, but he has influence with them, and if I interrupted him earlier, I only did so lest he might unwittingly misrepresent the views arid the feelings of the miners on this question. I understood him to say that if the miners were dissatisfied with the progress which was being made, they had representatives on that committee and could put their point of view before the committee through those representatives. What I had in mind was that the miners of this country, with all the strength at their command, urged upon the Department, upon the Government, and upon this House not to commit that crime of taking off the halfpenny. I do not think there is a single coalowner who would say that that halfpenny per ton is a matter of life or death to him. It is a trivial addition to the cost, 85 per cent. of which, I would point out, is borne by the wage fund of the industry. But when the men were putting forward the plea that the half penny should not be taken off we could not get the owners to join with us. In many respects in the administration of this fund the owners have given the fullest co-operation and the men have responded, but I do say this—that I thought it was a mean and petty thing for the owners to do to take that halfpenny away, and it was a mean and petty thing for the Government to give it to them.
The Secretary for Mines referred to the fact that the halfpenny had been stabilised for a long period, for something like 20 years, I believe, with the proviso that if the circumstances of the industry improved so as to warrant reconsideration, the question could be reviewed. Since the committee sat, the mining industry has come to this House and has received what amounts to monopoly


powers for the disposal of coal inside this country. I know that the export trade is still in the doldrums. It is fighting for its existence and we have been pressing upon the Government, upon this House, and upon the nation the necessity for assisting the export trade. But the inland trade in coal is more profitable today than it has ever been at any time in its history. Look at the papers to-day. Even in the poor districts of South Wales we have a company declaring a profit, though it has not done so for 16 years, and a big combine which practically owns South Wales has declared an interim dividend. I say that in those circumstances the coalowners ought to volunteer to give this halfpenny, and that is why we on this side have a right to ask for an inquiry.
What is the position? No one is satisfied with the rate at which baths are being provided. It is true, and much has been made of the fact, that for many years the miners themselves were hostile to this proposal. It was the hostility of ignorance. It was the hostility of men who did not understand, and of women who feared the innovation. I was one of four brothers working in a mine and I remember the rush home to be first for the tub. I know that many of the older generation viewed the idea of pit-head baths with a good deal of hostility but that hostility due to ignorance has now gone. It was not the coalowners who removed that ignorance. It may have been that, here and there, in a few cases the coalowners were pioneers, but the pioneering work in the main was done by this Labour movement and by the Miners' Federation, and all the legislation that we have had has been in consequence of pressure by the federation and not of voluntary action by anybody else. The Welfare Committee is dissatisfied with the progress which is being made with the provision of baths. The demand, by far, exceeds the supply and it is essential that the supply should be kept up to the demand. The report which has been given to-night by the Secretary for Mines of what the committee propose in order to accelerate the programme, shows that they are not satisfied with the present rate of progress. What my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion has urged is not an inquiry into the need for baths but an inquiry into the one simple question: How can we find more money in order to

get more baths? There is no need for a long inquiry. There is no need for a Royal Commission and a lot of fuss and bother to inquire into that question.
Let me suggest one way in which it could be done? The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Rowlands) put a point to the Secretary for Mines who did not reply to it and I put the same point to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not in order that he may give me a reply where he did not give a reply to an hon. Member on his own side, but in order to support the argument for an inquiry. The fund for pit-head baths is derived from a levy upon royalties and certain allocations from the general output fund to make a minimum of £375,000 per annum as a fund for baths. That levy upon royalties will be the subject of discussion and controversy very soon because the royalties, we are told, are to be unified. At the moment this levy is a levy upon the royalty owners. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that the Government propose in six months' time, or 12 months' time, or at some time in this Session, to introduce legislation as a result of which there will be no individual royalty owners. The State will become the owner of the royalties. Are we not entitled then, to ask whether the State, as owner of the royalties, will be satisfied that the present levy is all that is wanted for this purpose?
What is going to happen when the royalties are nationalized? When the State becomes the royalty owner, we presume that the State does not intend to make a free gift to the coalowners but that the revenue which is subject to this levy will in a few short months become the property of the State. Then it will be open to the State to make its contribution towards the amenities of the miners. We who represent the miners do not intend to sit by and see the royalties, having been made State property, being used to hand a gift to the coalowners. We shall claim that the miners are entitled to the first bite from whatever is saved. In view of the fact that royalties are to be unified we are entitled to say to the Mines Department and the Government, "If you are anxious for the provision of more pit-head baths, here is an opportunity of substantially increasing the fund, and meeting the increased demand for baths."
On the question of administration the Secretary for Mines said that even if all the money required were available, the rate of progress was subject to limitations—that it was not only a question of money but of other factors as well. I raise a point in that connection which has been raised outside this House. I do not expect a statement from the Minister upon it to-night, but I think it a matter to which reference should be made. I speak as one who has been for 12 years connected with a district committee, and who has been for three years vice-chairman of the South Wales district welfare committee, and I say that there is considerable apprehension at the way in which the funds and the work of the Welfare Committee are being centralised in London. I am not making any charges but I think it my duty to express a fear which is growing among those interested in this work. Had I spoken earlier in the Debate I would have asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give us some figures. What is the number of the staff of the central Welfare Committee now as compared with five years ago? What is the number in employment in the industry? What are the administration costs of the Welfare Committee? Are they increasing? Is this complete centralisation the best way of handling this problem and administering the fund?
I appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in mind, namely, that we have on the central committee staff in London a certain number of architects. They design and plan every scheme for baths. They make out the bills of quantities in every case and supervise all the work so that the erection of pit-head baths in South Wales, in Northumberland, in Durham, and everywhere else in the country depends upon that staff in the office in London. Therefore, the rate of progress in the provision of baths is the rate at which that staff can work. People with far more knowledge of the question than I have believe that if the work were decentralised, so that it would not be a case of having a few architects or surveyors working at the problem in London but of having a larger number, even if they only worked part time at the problem, working in the districts, the progress which is being made could be enormously accelerated. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will convey to those concerned

the growing apprehension which I have expressed as to this bureaucracy. The local committees in each district have done noble and marvellous work—both owners and men—and I am expressing a general view when I say that they have been cut out and ignored and that there is a tendency for the whole of the funds and the administration to fall into the hands of a nest of bureaucrats in London. I feel that I am entitled to express that fear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
There is another point which I wish to make concerning my own district. I come from the anthracite coalfield where there are very few shafts, and in the last five or six years we have been menaced and are still menaced and I fear will continue to be menaced by that terrible disease which, rightly or wrongly, is known as silicosis. There are committees of workmen and employers engaged on the task of trying to prevent the growth of this disease. We are told that once a workman has contracted it there is no cure. What we have to do is to try to find out how to prevent the disease being contracted. Among other things there is a general tendency for our men to live further and further away from the pits. We have a new pit to which the men travel 28 miles in the morning, and they have to travel 28 miles home again. It is a common thing for men to travel to work three, four or five miles, in omnibuses, on bicycles, or on motor bicyles, and very often they have to walk, if their circumstances are hard.
The men work in our anthracite mines 7½ hours, and they sweat at the end of it. They have to ride in what is called a carriage up the slant in the teeth of a current of air. Coming out exhausted by their day's work, riding in a carriage up an intake right in the teeth of weather such as we have been having, with snow, or sleet, or rain, or bleak winds, and then travelling in buses, two, three, or four miles, or walking, or cycling, or motor cycling a mile or so, the consequence is that every day there is a danger of a chill that might lead to pneumonia, to bronchitis, or to use the new word for a chest disease, to emphysema. Medical practitioners state that if an anthracite miner, 50 years of age, who has for years inhaled dust, which sticks in the lung and perforates it, contracts double pneumonia, he has not got the slightest chance of living


through it. To contract pneumonia is to meet certain death. The lungs are so torn and fibrous with the dust that men so exhausted after years of hard work contract a chill under the worst possible conditions. They then have to walk, or cycle, or go by bus afterwards, so that the mortality from pneumonia and emphysema is alarming. That, I know, cannot be entirely met. It is a very big problem, and I know that there is a medical research committee inquiring into it, but it is certain that some of that risk could be avoided if these men went from the pit straight to a bath at the pit-head and then travelled home.
Our coalfield is one of small collieries, with 200, 300, or 400 men to a pit, and for some reason the central committee in London have a horror of giving a bath unless there are at least 1,000 men employed. In this anthracite coalfield there are 50 pits, and there are at present only two pit-head baths, and three are now being provided. I believe that, on the grounds which I have indicated, the anthracite pit is the coal pit that has the strongest case of any in this country for pit-head baths. I hope, therefore, that my few words will have afforded added reason why the Motion should be adopted. The hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) and I were born in the same town. His people were tinplate and steel people, and mine were miners, just by the accident of birth. He has been brought up in the anthracite area, and I am sure that if he could hear the appeal which I am now making in the name of 25,000 anthracite miners who are running this terrible risk, he would withdraw his Amendment and ask the Secretary for Mines to accept the Motion. Its technique may be wrong. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), like myself, is a new Member and may not have framed his Motion in the proper way, but I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to accept its intentions. I urge him to accept the Motion on the understanding that he and his Department and the Government should set about to find ways and means by which money can be found to provide for this, one of the most urgent needs of the miners in these days.

6.50 p.m.

Miss WARD: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J.

Griffiths), who has just sat down, in asking the Mover of the Amendment whether he would consider its withdrawal. I quite agree that the terms of. the Motion are not such as we can all subscribe to in their entirety, but I think it is important that those of us, on both sides of the House, who represent mining districts should give the impression to the country that we want to promote the erection of pit-head baths in all areas and at all collieries where it is practicable. Though I quite agree about the terms of the Motion, it seems to me that the Amendment does not really offer very great advantages if it is pressed and carried to a Division.
There is only one thing that I would like to say in relation to the general problem. I would like, first, to say a word on behalf of the work which is done by the officials operating in London for the Central Miners' Welfare Committee. Ever since I have had anything to do with a mining area, I have taken as real an interest as an outsider can in the establishment of pit-head baths, and I think it was the year before last, when I felt that there were one or two difficulties in the way of the establishment of baths in my own division, that I sought the help of the Central Miners' Welfare Committee, and I received it in full measure. I asked whether it would be possible for someone to survey the whole of the collieries operating in my division to see what we could do and what work, in addition to pit-head baths, could be undertaken by the welfare committee, and the response that I got from the officials was very encouraging and deserving of all praise. In fact, in the Parliamentary division of Wallsend, including quite a large mining district, we have recently had some extraordinarily fine developments, in the starting of pit-head baths at some collieries, in the building of pavilions, and in general support.
It seems to me that the way in which we could best serve the interests of the promoters of social welfare at the pits would be for those who represent mining divisions, both from the employers' point of view and from the trade unions' point of view, to talk a little more about the work that has been done. One of the difficulties, of course, about the establishment of pit-head baths, as hon. Members above the Gangway here know very well, has been that sometimes the very


conservatism of the miners themselves prevents them from giving the encouragement necessary to the district welfare committee, and it is only through the joint work of miners' leaders, who know the value of pit-head baths, and of men in the districts where pit-head baths have been established that we can overcome the objections which some collieries have to voting in favour of these baths.
I intervene in this Debate, really, only to ask my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to consider withdrawing it on the understanding mentioned by the last speaker, because I feel that both the supporters of the Government and the Opposition are desirous of seeing as much use as possible made of the funds which are available. I do not think for a moment that if there were an application made for the establishment of pithead baths, there would be any difficulty about obtaining the necessary funds. There is plenty of money in the fund, and all that is required really is the combination and co-operation of all those people who have the interests and the social welfare of the miners at heart. I should like it to go forth from this House that in a matter of this kind we can unite. It does not really matter about the terms of the Motion, so long as we in this House understand the basis on which it is passed, and so I add my words in an appeal to the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) to withdraw his Amendment.
I think sometimes the employers might consider encouraging their men to consider their own interests more than they do, and in the same way I think the trade unions might sometimes make it a little easier in the colliery districts when they come to the discussion of the terms on which the management of pit-head baths is to be carried out. I hope my mining friends will forgive me—I am not going into details—but any of them who know my part of the world will probably realise that the trade unions do not always make it as easy as they might, and sometimes the employers do not press forward with their side of it as quickly as they might. I hope that this evening we shall unite on the understanding that this is just an expression of opinion that in this matter nothing should be left undone that can be done in the mining districts. The hon. Member for West Fife

(Mr. Gallacher) has chosen a most valuable subject for to-night's discussion.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I think that all the miners' representatives who have spoken have spoken from their own experience. We want pit-head baths because we ourselves, when we were at the pits, did not have any baths, and you know the value of a thing if you have never had it. I have served on a district committee, one of the biggest district committees in the coalfield, for 12 years, and so I know something about the district work, and I want to pay my tribute here to the unanimity with which both owners' and workmen's representatives worked on those welfare committees. They were not similar to other committees on which I have worked for many years. I used to call the welfare committee a round table committee, but when I went through the door of the committee dealing with price lists as between district owners and district workmen, I used to say, "Now we are going into the war." They were the same men, sitting in the same room, discussing price lists one day and welfare the next, but you would think they were not the same persons at all. When we were discussing welfare work we pooled our brains for the welfare of the miners and their wives and children, and, as far as the industry is concerned, those were in my experience among the happiest times I had in it.
Some hon. Members have given us their experiences at home. I am one of a family of 10, seven lads and three girls. Six of the lads worked in the pit, and one did not, and as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, there used to be a scramble at home as to who should get the hot water first, be-case the water had to be heated on the kitchen fire in a pancheon. There were sometimes six pantheons of water heated, because you could not follow your brother in the same water, for it was like soup when he had finished. That is going on yet. When I look back on those days, when my mother got out of bed at 4·30 every morning and did not go back until 11 o'clock at night, and had all this water to boil, I wonder at the amount of work she got through and the number of years she lived. I honour her every day of my life when I think of the amount


of drudgery she had to perform as a miner's wife. With all the progress that we have made, cannot we see that the pit muck is left at the pit, which is its proper place, and not taken to the miners' homes?
The reason there was so little spent on pits at first was because there were so many other amenities that were required in the districts. Anybody who remembers reading in the evening papers the evidence given at the first Commission in 1919—when Robert Smillie was a member, and the vice-president of Scotland, I think it was Robinson, gave evidence about housing conditions in Scotland—will remember how we read those accounts as if they were a Wallace novel. People all over the British Isles asked if that really was the state of things in the mines. The Sankey Commission brought in a penny levy for welfare. I believe the Miners' Welfare Committee has helped to bring more temperance into the mining districts than all the preaching of teetotalism. I have seen it in my own district. I was the representative of 29 pits, and if the men had had 25 years ago the bowling greens and other amenities which they have now, instead of investing their money in John Smith's brewery at Tadcaster many of them would have had a hearth of their own.
The Secretary for Mines said that little had been spent. We are spending more out of the district funds for baths now, when we have less in them, than we did when we had more, because we have been enabled to get some of the other amenities. He said, "We are speeding up." Before I left South Yorkshire we had a priority list for pit-head baths long enough to continue until 1941, and we had to send circulars to the pits asking them not to make application because the list was so long. I have been looking at the 1935 report. I went into the Library to look at it, and while I put it on one side for a few minutes the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) I found had been studying it. He has really stolen my powder, and I have only a bit of gas left. We have in South Yorkshire accommodation for 69,639 men, but there are over 100,000 men working in the pits. We still have some pits where 4,000 men are working that have not one bath.
I ask that the central committee will not push forward their theory that one big bath will do for the men as they come out of the pit. We want every man to be able to have a shower bath in seclusion. When baths were first introduced it was complained that there was not sufficient privacy, and the miner today still wants privacy. I hope the Minister will emphasise that to the central committee. Before the hon. Gentleman came to the Department we got instructions in the district committees to give priority to the pits which had a life of over 20 years. If the pit had not a life of 20 years it had not the chance of a cat in the bottomless pit of getting an installation. The next condition was that the pit had to have a life of 15 years; and the third was that men living a long distance from their work were to be given preference over those who lived close to the pit. The district committee strongly resent the idea of centralising everything.
When in 1934 the halfpenny was taken off, instructions were sent to the district committees about what they could and could not do. The South Yorkshire Committee told the central Committee that they could take the work over themselves, that we would not submit to 100 per cent. dictatorship from the centre. That was the answer to the growing centralisation of the staff, and the tremendous expense that has been caused. In 1925 the staff numbered eight; in 1930 it was 64; and in 1935, 80. The central staff in London cannot see as well as the district committee what is needed. Yet the staff in 10 years has risen from eight to 80. The expenditure in 1925 was £3,430; in 1927 it was £8,300; and in 1935, £40,222. I make the same appeal as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), and I ask that the centralisation of this work should be kept under observation so that we shall be able to know what we are getting for the £40,000. Are we getting the goods or not? Could the goods be delivered as well by laymen in the district?

Mr. GALLACHER: May I put a question to the Minister.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the House consents.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that he will consult with the Welfare Committee, and with them work out a scheme covering all the applications now before the Committee, so that each of the pits will have some idea whether or when they are likely to have an installation? That is not tying him to any particular period.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am certainly prepared at all times to consult the Welfare Committee. I have only just heard the details, but as long as the hon. Member is prepared to leave it to me to get the general sense of what he said I have no objection. If that is what he means by the inquiry in his Motion, I am much obliged to him for clarifying it.

Mr. L. JONES: In view of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for West Fife wish to withdraw his Motion?

Mr. GALLACHER: I have replaced the Motion by my question.

Mr. WHITELEY: I think the idea is that the Motion should be accepted by the House on the explanation of the hon. Member as to the kind of inquiry he wants.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, in view of the advance that is taking place in housing, in health, and in hygiene, is of opinion that pit-head baths have become an urgent necessity for all mining communities and, recognising the limited resources of the Miners Welfare Committee and its inability under present conditions to cope with the demands being made upon it, expresses the opinion that the Department of Mines should immediately institute an inquiry on the best method of amplifying the finances at the disposal of the committee and thereby ensure that pit-head baths will be established as a recognised part or the equipment of the mines of this country.

DISTRESS IN THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. R. GIBSON: I beg to move,
That, in view of the widespread and long-continued distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, now involving

grave peril of a complete breakdown in the social economy of these areas, this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to formulate without delay proposals designed to arrest depopulation and poverty among the remaining inhabitants and to provide facilities whereby they may earn a decent livelihood.
Whatever experience a new Member may have had of speaking elsewhere, there is necessarily a sense of diffidence in addressing the House for the first time. Accordingly, I crave from right hon. Members and hon. Members the customary indulgence that is extended to a Member who is making his maiden speech. The subject-matter of the Motion is of intense interest to Scotland in general and to Greenock in particular. Greenock is the natural gateway to the Western Highlands and to the islands of the Clyde, as well as to the Inner and Outer Hebrides. Greenock itself has a large Highland population, many of them speaking the Gaelic tongue and still attending Gaelic services on Sundays. Many were on service during the Great War and eagerly anticipated a home promised them in their native Highlands, but to them the words of Mackenzie MacBryde applied:
'Well done!' they say, 'you are good and true,
But we cannot give you a home.'
For the hill we want for the deer
And the glen the birds enjoy;
And bad for the game is the smoke of the cot
And the song of the crofter's boy.
The distress in the Highlands and Islands and the pressing need for remedial measures are felt keenly not only in those areas themselves, but in other parts of Scotland and outwith Scotland where the descendants of Highlanders live. They live far afield throughout the British Dominions, and most particularly in Canada and New Zealand. Historically, the causes of this distress go back to the Civil War of 1745. At the end of that war a new system of land tenure was put into force in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The cultivators of the land found that the land had been handed over to the chiefs as their absolute property. The chiefs no longer had duties of a patriarchal type in relation to those who occupied the land, and they were thus able to deal with the land as their own private property. Towards the end of the eighteenth century there took place what are generally recognised as


inhuman clearances from the holdings in the Highlands, and away in the far north the scenes were very sad indeed. Many deaths were caused through the cruelties which were perpetrated at that time.
Many of the population had to emigrate overseas because their holdings were taken from them in order that big sheep farms might be formed and the landlords might receive much higher rents than they received from the smallholdings. Later these big sheep farms did not pay. The price of wool and mutton fell, and the next stage was the conversion of the farms into deer forests. Bit by bit the land became impoverished. Impoverished land and depleted fisheries are now unable to provide in the Highlands and Islands a livelihood for the population who are inexorably shut out from large tracts of country that are dedicated to the deer. More and more the young people are driven from the Highlands and Islands, and the population which for a long time had been steadily decreasing is now rapidly decreasing. Let me take the seven crofting counties in Scotland—Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland, the last two being taken as separate counties. In these seven counties the aggregate population for 1891 was 360,367; for 1911 it was 341,535; and for 1931 it was 293,139. The fall for the first 20 years was 18,832, and for the second 20 years 48,398. These figures, taken for successive periods of 20 years, show how rapid the depopulation of the crofting counties has become.
Three successive Commissions have deplored the depredation of deer in the Highlands and the desolation ensuing from the encouragement of deer and deer forests. Already in 1884 nearly 2,000,000 acres had been devoted to deer, and Lord Napier of Ettrick's Commission in that year reported:
Who would admit that Scotland should be made a wilderness, even if the inhabitants were provided with better lands and more lucrative occupations elsewhere? No one could contemplate the conversion of the whole extent of good pasture land, and of possible arable land, at a moderate elevation in the Highlands, into forests, without alarm and reprobation, and it is scarcely necessary to say that any serious movement towards such an issue would be arrested by the force of public opinion, attended by an amount of irritation much to be deprecated. We do not anticipate with any degree of

certainty that the contingency to which we have adverted would arise, but considering the divergence of opinion expressed, the possibility of unfortunate results and the prevailing excitement in connection with this question, we may well consider whether Your Majesty's Government and Parliament may not contemplate such legislative restrictions as would restrain the progressive and immoderate afforestation of the land, and allay the apprehensions that are widely felt upon the subject.
Then the report went on to suggest legislative action, but, in spite of it, nothing has ever been done. The Royal Commission of 1892 called for a check to the spread of deer forests and scheduled, in the crofting counties alone, no less than 1,782,785 acres of land suitable for the extension of existing holdings and the creation of new ones and of moderate-sized farms. Lastly, the Departmental Committee on Deer Forests appointed in 1919 declared that
the withdrawal of so large an area from pastoral uses was, from a national point of view, much to be regretted.
The deer is a selective feeder. It eats the tender grass and leaves the rough grass which overgrows the other, with the result that the land quickly becomes unsuitable even for deer. The deer then have to pass on and seek new pastures. Deer roam over a very large fraction of Scotland. I put it at no less than one-third of the country. In a hard winter, a few years ago, deer were knocked down in the public streets on the north side of Glasgow. From there to the Pentland Firth and from the West Coast to the German Ocean the deer attack the crops of the farmer and the crofter. The islands of the west are afflicted with the same pest. The owner of the deer forest is under no obligation to restrict the deer by fences, and farmers, large and small, are not permitted to shoot the deer, although it is no respecter of private property. It is an appalling fact that the Forestry Commission have to pay from 3s. 6d. to 5s. per yard for fencing to protect young trees from the deer. This is an impossible burden for any farmer, far less for a crofter. The landlord has no intention of ending the plague of deer. It was said of William the Conqueror by the English Chronicler that he "loved the tall deer as if he was their father." The Highland laird nourishes the red deer as if he was their wet nurse.
The amount of land available for agricultural purposes is restricted by certain operations of the Forestry Commission. In sheep farming the sheep go on to the hill ground for summer grazing and are brought down to the low lying ground for wintering. Roughly, the sheep on three acres of the summer hill pasture require one acre of low lying winter pasture, but in many parts the Forestry Commission take over a large tract of hill and valley and plant the valley with trees. This at once puts out of commission a large portion of hill pasture for the sheep. An example was given in evidence a few weeks ago, before the Economic Council sitting at Oban, of some 45,000 sheep being cleared off a corner of north Argyllshire within recent years owing to the operations of the Forestry Commission.
The land in the Highlands is impoverished in many instances by bracken. If the land is being properly tilled the bracken will be kept down, but in the deer forests it is allowed to grow. On smallholdings bracken does not become a pest or a scourge, because the ordinary agricultural processes keep it down, and you find in many cases that, when a crofter desires bracken for bedding for his cattle or his horse, he has to go to the adjoining deer forests to get it, this being a quite general practice. About half-a-dozen years ago there came under my notice a book written by a Mr. Guthrie Smith in New Zealand—the name Guthrie Smith being known to legal history in Scotland. He had gone to New Zealand and he farmed sheep out there. The country was covered with bracken, but the working of the sheep on the land brought the bracken under control, and bit by bit his big sheep farm responded so well to the sheep and became so amenable to agricultural processes that it could be broken up into smaller farms, and more intensive farming methods could be adopted. That being successful in New Zealand, I see no reason at all why similar successful results should not be achieved by putting sheep on to very large portions of land now set apart for deer forests. Again, rabbits are a plague—that is quite common, even on golf courses. In the islands of Scotland in-breeding among the rabbits renders them tubercular, so that they are not even suitable as food. Further,

while a landholder himself has the right to shoot rabbits, yet, if land is held in common, all the holders are not entitled to shoot the rabbits. They may appoint one of their number to shoot the rabbits, or they may appoint some third party, and in that way the rabbits may quite easily get out of hand.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House a recent Rating development that has operated very harshly on smallholders. Hon. Members will recall that a large farmer has his land and his house treated as a unum quid for assessment purposes—they are taken together—and in addition the large farmer has the benefit of de-rating. He pays rates on only one-eighth of his rental. This is for him only a temporary benefit because, as soon as his lease runs out, competition in the market brings in a new tenant who is willing to pay an enhanced rent. The benefit of de-rating then goes straight to the party for whom a beneficent Conservative Government intended it should go, namely, the landlord himself.
A smallholder is in a different position from a large farmer. He takes his land from the Department of Agriculture, with an obligation to build on that land a substantial house according to a plan prepared by the Department of Agriculture. The house is built with the help of a loan provided by the Department, and on that loan, of course, the smallholder has to pay interest and sinking fund dues. But the trouble is that the smallholder does not get the benefit of de-rating. The house is a "tenant's improvement," and the tenant has to pay on that house both owners' and occupiers' rates. Let me give an example that will bring the matter home. Take a smallholder with his little patch of an acre, or thereby, on which he pays, say, 30s. a year rent. Then he puts up his house, which is assessed at £12 say. What is his position for rating purposes? He pays owners' rates on that £12 and pays tenants' rates on £12 plus 30s., that is, £13 10s. Consider the case of a large farmer who has a farm with a rental of £120, which includes his house and his steading. He pays only tenants' rates. He does not pay owners' rates at all, and the only tenants' rates he pays are on one-eighth of £120, that is, £15. This little illustration shows how very hardly this rating matter bears on the smallholder as compared with the large farmer.
However, with all the disabilities and hardships attaching to holdings, there are thousands of men in the Highlands and Islands, and many more in the towns and villages of the Lowlands of Scotland, who want holdings. Their number is far larger than the number of outstanding applications for new holdings and enlargements stated by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the 8th December, 1936, when he gave the figures as 2,911 and 2,975 respectively. Applications have been put in for holdings and for enlargements since 1911, and applicants are "post-carded" at long intervals asking them whether they still want holdings or enlargements. As only something like 86 new holdings and four enlargements were provided last year it is obvious that there is small chance of applications for either being successful. Recently, one of these postcards from the Department brought an answer written on behalf of the recipient. It read thus:
I have received yours asking me if I still want a holding. I wanted one many years ago from you. I am now dead and have got one in the cemetery. Your obedient servant. …
That illustrates what a tremendous number of people there are in Scotland wanting holdings and not able to get them because of the heavy dead hand of landlordism pressing upon a great portion of Scotland.
In the Islands and along the coast of Scotland other factors entail hardship and add to the distress. Piers are privately owned; they fall into disrepair and not a few have gone out of commission. The same applies to harbours. The consequent distress on the seaboard of Scotland and on the Islands where these piers and harbours have become derelict is obvious. Many smallholders depend partly on fishing, their holding not being of sufficient size to maintain them. Fishing is the sole mainstay of many islanders and of a large population on the mainland, but the fishing is very poor. A couple of year ago I "holidayed" with my family on the island of Gigha, which lies between Islay and Kintyre. The saithe and lythe, which are coalfish, were so scarce that the local lobster fisher was unable to catch more than a paltry dozen in an evening, quite insufficient to bait his lobster creels. I know this because I was out with him more than once, and he had to buy a

supply of herring from Tarbet to bait his lobster creels. That condition of things is common along the coasts of Scotland to-day and in the Western Isles. It is entirely different from the state of affairs 35 to 40 years ago when I was a boy. Then, we could catch with four rods, manipulated by two fishers sitting at the stern of a rowing boat, off the island of Iona or the island of Arran, anything from 15 to 20 dozen saithe and lithe in an hour and a half. Hand line fishing is also in a very bad way.
I venture to digress here to consider the cause and the remedy for this fishing evil. There seems little doubt that the lack of fish is due to the havoc wrought by trawlers breaking up the spawning grounds in the shallow waters. Trawlers should, I submit, be kept far beyond the three-mile limit from the shore. The basis of that distance I understand to be the range seawards of a gun placed on the shore in the old days. But that standard is clearly obsolete so far as modern guns are concerned. An alteration of the three-mile limit would probably require international agreement. I strongly urge the Government to take the necessary steps to have the three-mile limit extended. I understand that in Russia there is a 16-mile stretch of territorial waters. In the interests of our Scottish fishermen we ought to exclude trawlers altogether from the stretch of water between the Inner and the Outer Hebrides, from the Pentland Firth, the Moray Firth, and from the arms of the sea on the mainland. I think that is essential in order to do something to restore the fishing industry in Scotland.
Let me pass to consider very shortly the question of tourist traffic. In the Highlands and Islands the tourist traffic is amazingly small in dimensions. It prospers in Iona and Gigha, in Islay and in Arran. In Skye there are notices warning off visitors, and you find the same thing obtaining in Sutherlandshire. In the island of Rhum, which is 28,000 acres in extent, one finds only five families there. They are the caretakers for sporting interests. They have schools, they have medical services and postal services for those five families alone. Formerly, 10,000 sheep were supported on that island; to-day there are no sheep, the whole place is devoted to deer. The landlord in Skye and in Sutherlandshire


warns off the visitors. The landlord is unlike the deer, he firmly believes in the sanctity of private property.
With regard to transport, the MacBrayne Company has a subsidy of something like £50,000 a year from the State. That is nothing like the subsidy given in Norway to the coastwise shipping lines. I understand that Norway pays something like £1,000 a day to produce that magnificent service of coastwise shipping which I knew there in 1912 and is to-day, I understand, in no worse a position than it was then. Our shipping services could easily be extended but only if the land were available for agricultural development. The transport services in the North-West of Scotland are deplorable. There is no railway between Garve and Ullapool, and between Culrain and Lochinver. These have been discussed for many years now.
There is urgent need for remedy for the distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. From this side of the House I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the logical remedy is, first, to exterminate the deer. The deer are a plague and a pest. Secondly, the land in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland should be nationalised. Unless that is done, it is very difficult to see how public money spent on improvement of land will not go straight into the pockets of the landlords. Let me take a practical example from the Island of Tiree, that magnificent island to the West of Iona, which might be called the granary of the Hebrides. A pier was erected there at the public expense, to the tune of £13,000. The rentals of five farms were straightway increased by something like 25 per cent. Smallholdings were constituted on one of the farms and the rents of the others were again increased. The last farm had a rent of £700; it was increased to £1,000. That is typical of the way in which the expenditure of public money on land goes at the present time to help and to enrich the landlord. It is almost impossible to keep public money out of the rapacious maw of the insatiable landlord.
The urge for remedies in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is general; it is not confined to this side of the House. I find that at a meeting at Perth on 9th September, 1936, of the

Black-Faced Sheep Breeders' Association, very strong things were said against the deer position in Scotland. I find that Lord Strathcarron wrote a very strong letter to the "Times" on 27th November, 1936, the day on which the result of the Greenock By-election was announced. The Duke of Montrose wrote to the "Times" on 11th December, 1936, calling for remedial measures on this very matter. Only last Saturday, the "Oban Times" whose Conservative principles are, I understand, impeccable, had a leading article on this topic, and the article said things which would have seemed strange to Conservatives, even 20 years ago. The leader writer said:
The laud's the thing.''
He said that the land was impoverished and then he said:
The State must come to the rescue of the land.
He went further. He said that the duty of the Government was to insist upon protective measures with regard to the land, and he drew as analogies the Factory Acts in the case of the employers, reserves in the case of banks, and the maintenance sections under the Housing Acts. The day has quite clearly come for the Highlands and Islands to be taken in hand for their own good, and not for the good of the landlords.
May I suggest a principle which has been adopted by Parliament as a result of the labours of a House of Commons Committee to inquire into transport in North-West Scotland? I find two House of Commons Papers dealing with the subject. One is No. 61 of 1928, 20th April. It contains a Treasury Minute and the relative contract between the Minister of Transport and David MacBrayne, Limited. The second was later in the same year and is No. 4, 1928, dated 16th November. The contract there was between the Minister of Transport and David MacBrayne (1928) Limited. Innovations were introduced. The contracts provided firstly, for reduced freights; secondly, for limited dividends; and, thirdly, for a Government representative being on the board of directors, It provided further for better, bigger and faster boats. I understand that that principle was received with universal approval in this House. The principle was surely of a semi-Socialist nature and is capable of wide


application. It may be applied, in my humble submission, to road transport. Are not the roads publicly owned? Why should a private company come and break them up? The same principle should be applied to piers and to harbours.
As regards improvements, why not adopt the "principle of betterment" that is contained in the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1930, under Section 2 of which a sheriff in Scotland can, after inquiry, fix the compensation payable to the landlord who has received facilities. By the application of that principle of betterment the hungry maw of the landlord might be prevented from taking benefits intended to create a national asset. There are other things that one might mention with regard to this distress. There is room for marketing schemes in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Orkney sends many eggs to the mainland and to the South. There is room for an egg marketing scheme in the Islands. Hydro-electricity might be craved in aid, in order to bring new industries to the district.
This question of justice to the Highlands and Islands is very serious for Scotland. There is a bitter feeling prevalent in Scotland that Scotland has been neglected all these years. That feeling is not restricted to Scotland but is common in the breasts of Scotsmen throughout the length and breadth of the world. There is also a disquieting feature. I would draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the feeling that it is only when extreme and illegal methods are adopted that any alleviation is obtained. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position in Luskintyre. There is, further, the conviction in Scotland that if Scotland had adopted the tactics of Ireland things would be better in Scotland to-day.
I have just come from a by-election and my finger has been closely on the pulse of the electorate in the West of Scotland. I know how deeply Scotland is feeling with regard to this matter, and I have to tell the gentlemen on the Treasury Bench this: If Westminster refuses to take the necessary steps to deal justice to the Highlands and Islands, a Scottish Parliament, sitting in Edinburgh, very quickly will. In Scotland, we have been celebrating the centenary

of a distinguished Scottish statesman, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. He was a man of principle, and on this topic his principle was: "We should make the land of Scotland a treasure house for the people instead of a pleasure ground for the rich." In these days we find that a morganatic political mésalliance is without principle and is despised. Its days are numbered because its acts are without principle. It has given up principle for shuffling compromise. The true destiny of the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is not to eke out a moribund existence on the eleemosynary largesse of money barons, whether foreign or native, but to stand on their own brawny legs and to contribute from their wealth and their efforts to the wellbeing of Scotland and of the world.
The outlook from Greenock to the North and the West is one of unparalleled beauty. I have travelled on the American and Canadian Rockies, on the Swiss, Austrian and Italian Alps, and over the mountains of Norway. I have stood on the spot there which the late William Ewart Gladstone preferred above all others, and which the Norwegians call to this day, "Utsingen," meaning "The view"; but none of those surpasses the view from Greenock. That view can, if the right type of legislative action be taken, lead to the most glorious and happiest regions in the world.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLAN: I beg to second the Motion.
I have the very pleasant duty of congratulating my hon. and learned Friend upon his very able speech. He has established himself at once in the confidence and favour of the House, and as an authority on Highland matters which have not, in the past, been sufficiently before the House. I should say, from the effect of his speech alone, that those matters will certainly be brought before the House on many occasions in the future. I am sure that we look forward on all sides with pleasure to hearing him on many occasions.
My temptation is to begin to take the "Road to the Isles," as in the well-known song. I would, unlike the writer of that song, talk rather of the experience of one who remembers the corns and aches suffered by going over those roads


on many occasions. We can imagine the discomforts and the very legitimate grievances of the people who have to go over those roads, if they can be called roads at all, every day and, which is worse, every night. Many of those ways are not, properly speaking, roads at all. Recently, in an open letter to the Minister of Transport, which I hope the House read, I said:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the roads in the Western Islands are not paved at all.
I was good enough to give the Minister credit for good intentions, but they do not do much good to the feet of the little children who have to travel not only the legal three miles, but more than the three miles which the law lays down as the limit of the way to school. The roads in the Western Isles are best described by the people of the Western Isles themselves. I have here a petition, from which, with the permission of the House, I will quote. It says:
We, the undersigned, would respectfully bring to your notice the following facts and reasons for framing a petition for a Kendebig-Scadabay road in the Isle of Harris.
The existing footpath is approximately three and a-half miles in length serving the districts of Kendebig, Meavaig, Ard Meavaig, Kyles Skerribal, Drinnishadder, Plockropore and Scadabay, with a total population of roughly 300 people. This path is an exceedingly rough and stony one: in places but to slip would mean being hurled down a slope of jagged rocks and finding a watery bed in an adjacent loch. Yet at least on one day in every week wives and mothers have to strike this weary trail to carry home on their backs the week's provisions, or to meet a 'bus bringing the wool or yarn necessary for their only means of livelihood, the manufacture of tweed.
Our food supply is perforce one which would wreck any constitution—salt fish every day of the week and salted mutton as a special treat on Sunday. We cannot risk ordering fresh meat, as we are entirely dependent on the clemency of the weather for its timely delivery by motorboat from Tarbert.
We cannot benefit by the daily mail service and daily 'bus service which have recently become the portion of the more favoured areas, because we are cut off from all access to these privileges.
In cases of illness it is at least a matter of hours before the doctor can be brought, and if the patient has to be removed to hospital it means heavy labour for the bearers and unspeakable torture for the

sufferer before the road-end can be reached; it might even mean death to the patient through delay of treatment.
That such primitive conditions should exist in a civilised country is a disgrace to any self respecting government, and, with all due respect to their good intentions, Members of Parliament who travel by car to meet their constituents at the road-end cannot fully realise the rigours and hardships that these men and women have to endure. Only experience brings realisation.
Those facts were placed before the Department of Agriculture 20 years ago, but nothing has been done. So desperate was the need of the people in the Western Isles for roads that they even offered 25 per cent. of their labour free. At first they offered 25 per cent., and it was accepted greedily by the county councils, the Ministry of Transport and the rest; but the demand for labour was increased to 50 per cent. The people did not know what they were giving. The wages were estimated by the county council's engineers at the very lowest possible rate—5d. and 6d. an hour; and the wages paid were 2d. and 2½d., and sometimes even 1½d. an hour, for men working in winter conditions in the worst winter that had been known for many years. It is a disgrace that such conditions should exist. They do not exist in any other part of Great Britain, and, indeed, I hardly think that coolies in the most primitive parts of the British Empire would be asked to work for such wages and under such conditions. An example of the kind of things that happen was quoted by my predecessor in the representation of the Western Isles in this House. One twin was born in the island of Harris, and several hours later the other was born in the town of Stornoway, where the mother had to be carried over rough roads after undergoing a boat journey and being carried on a stretcher up a slippery and dangerous rock. That woman gave birth to the second twin hours later, after all that agony. There is only one district nurse in the Island of Scalpay and no doctor at all; that is the Island where three-quarters of the population—mostly young men—are unemployed. Roads in the Isles are a fundamental necessity for transport, on which will have to be based any prosperity that can be restored or developed there. Without means of transport and communication it is hopeless to try to set up any industry
When I speak of roads, I include piers and harbours, because, in an island, the pier and harbour are the beginning and the end of the roads. If there are not proper piers and harbours, ships cannot come in. In their present state of decay, owing to the neglect of the county councils and the Government, they do not even admit of fishing as they should. The white fishing used to be an additional source of food supply and of employment for the people, but in many districts there is now no white fishing at all, and the poverty of the people is all the greater. I ask that this question may be considered, not only by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but by the Minister of Transport, because it really involves the whole Government and almost every Government Department. Regarding wages on our roads, the people of the Western Isles have as much right to decent wages, and as much need for them, as the people in any other parts of Great Britain. We want roads; but not at such a great sacrifice as is represented by wages of per hour, with deductions for insurance contributions arid so on. For generations road petitions have been coming in to Members of Parliament, and still nothing worth talking about has been done. A five-year plan with 100 per cent. grants has been talked about for something like a year, but I think the expression "five years" must mean that there is to be five years delay before the plan is begun. Nothing substantial has happened as yet; we are still waiting. I am not going to criticise that plan in all fairness until I know exactly what the plan is to be.
Turning to population problems, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, the position in the Western Isles has given rise to depopulation at an alarming rate and to an alarming extent. On the basis of figures given by the late Secretary of State for Scotland, I estimate that al; the present rate of depopulation there will in three or four generations be no one left in Ross and Cromarty at all. The population of Ross and Cromarty, in round figures, in 1920 was 71,000; after 15 years, in 1935, it was down to 62,000, a decrease of something like one-seventh. The number of children in the primary and secondary schools in the Island of Lewis was 5,524 in 1920; in 1935 it was down to 4,550, a decrease of nearly 1,000

in 15 years. Emigration has been suggested as a solution, but to my mind emigration is a cowardly solution, the last refuge of ignoble minds that have not only failed to struggle, but have even failed to try. Emigration is not only cowardly, but at this particular time it is suicidal, because, if carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean the evacuation, not only of the Western Isles, but of the whole British Isles. With the present slump in the birth rate, which is going down much more steeply than it has for many years, and with the present position of the death rate, we shall soon reach a position in which only old people will inhabit the Western Isles, and there will be no children there at all. The figures I have given show that there would have been a still greater decrease in population but for the abnormal rise in the birth rate which took place immediately after the War, and in normal times we may expect the slump in population to be greater than it has been hitherto. We cannot afford depopulation of this kind, and, if it comes to the last calamity of a war, no one will be more anxious than the Government to discover more population, and not to give further cause for depopulation in. the Western Isles and everywhere else.
I maintain, and other authorities better equipped than myself maintain, that not only can the Isles maintain their own population, but a much greater population, and they have done so in past generations. In those times the people in the Highlands lived more prosperously relatively to the prosperity of other parts of the country, than they are doing now. The standard of life in the Highlands relatively to the standard of the rest of the country has gone down tremendously. If local wealth were developed, if such home industries were restored as can be economically restored, and if more modern and economic methods of crofting and. marketing were introduced, we are confident that the Highlands could maintain a larger population. We are not asking for charity for the Highlands, but only for a fair deal. We want them to be self-supporting. A people without endeavour becomes a degenerate people. We are only asking that they be given a fair chance to make the best of things for themselves, and to make things better for their children.
As regards their position in connection with unemployment insurance—and I would bring under the same category contributory pensions—the Acts were framed for places where it was possible to have regular employment, with regular payment of contributions. In the Western Isles to-day, apart from the towns, the only insurable employment for the crofters, who have to supplement their income, which is almost nil, is in road-making and work of that kind, and the only guarantee of regular work to which the Acts can apply in the Western Isles is in the fishing industry. That, however, is seasonal, and is at the mercy of every freak of nature. In one year there may be fish, and in the next year there may be none; in one week there may be fish, and the next there may be none; in one week there may be employment, and in the next there may be none. That applies to the women as well as to the men, and it applies right round the coast. Wherever they go in following their own insurable occupation, they Are at the mercy of the tides, the herring and all sorts of circumstances.
These Acts cannot possibly apply in conditions to which they are not adapted, for which they were not framed, and which were not visualised by those who framed them. It is true that they permit certain modifications for seasonal workers, but, as I have pointed out before to the Minister of Labour, they are not suitable to the conditions of the Western Isles, and under them many injustices against the people there are being perpetrated by the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board. Many of them have their benefit disallowed when people in less favourable positions from the point of view of justice are allowed benefit. Many people are denied unemployment insurance who would have qualified had they been in a particular place in a particular season according to arbitrary rules set out by the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board. People who have worked far more in a particular area are denied unemployment benefit, and many other benefits to which they ought to have been entitled if the Acts had been properly framed for the district, while others who have worked far less are allowed the full advantages of benefits under the Acts.
The same thing applies to contributory pensions. I have had cases before the Minister of Pensions and the Secretary of State where people have had work for several weeks but cannot be employed for a sufficiently long period to enable them to qualify. That state of affairs should be remedied. Where the injustice is manifest and obvious, there is no party or Minister which can with any sense of self-respect oppose these alterations. The whole responsibility for the delay, which is a criminal responsibility, lies on the Government, and they have been guilty of it for a long time. It applies also to the unemployment position.
Fundamentally, the prosperity of the Hebrides is the fishing. On the prosperity of the fishing, regular work for the fishing girls—their age does not matter; we call them all girls—and men depends. The only opportunity for the average fishermen and fisherwomen of qualifying under the Unemployment Insurance Act is that there will be seasonal employment, which is the only employment there is, of a regular nature. When that fails, there is nothing left. When the herring fails, poverty prevails as far as the Hebrides are concerned. The Government found the fishermen very useful in 1914, when the fishing fleet became the backbone of British naval defence, but our people remember the refusals and delays of the Government ever since 1918, and they are becoming very cynical about patriotism and other things about which we may hold different opinions. We came to these people in the time of national crisis. This is the time of their national crisis, and who is going to help them? If it is a case of one good turn deserving another, it is time the nation turned to help the fishermen.
One immediate way in which the Government can help them is by at least an extension of the trawling limits. The least we can demand is extension of the 3-mile limit to 13 miles. The best we ask for is that the Minch should be closed to trawlers altogether. There is a bitterness under the quarrel between the herring fishing and the trawl fishing. There need be no such conflict and clash of interests at all. The Government should view the whole thing properly as a national fishing industry and tackle it as such. Along with this important and fundamental basis of the economic life of the Highlands, the herring fishing and


crofting, there is the possibility of developing many other industries. For instance, a new industry called "Cefoil" has been established in the Orkneys and Shetlands, but there are many places in the Western Isles where a far better sea-weeds supply is available. Again, the best lobster grounds in Europe are in the Western Isles. They are not properly developed. Certainly they are not developed, as they might be, for the benefit of the lobster fishers and crofters.
Crofting by itself does not provide a sufficient income upon which to keep a family in these days when we expect a better standard of living than our forefathers had unless it is supplemented by regular guaranteed work and a proper income. That is what we are demanding. The crofts must be brought up to modern standards. They must be made more economic. There is no reason why poultry should not be developed, as an additional food supply against a time of crisis and in normal times, and there is a commission working at the possibilities of it elsewhere. There is no reason why sheep should not be bred to a much larger extent on land which is now given over to deer. If you realise what 10s. means to a crofter, any little effort on their behalf would be appreciated. If the Government only realised what a difference the old age pension made, they would recognise how very welcome any little effort on their part would be.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is regarded as a demigod on the strength of the old age pensions. I should like to see the Secretary of State regarded as a demigod. I should be pleased to worship at his shrine if he would throw us some of these little concessions. A poverty prevails there which cannot be equalled in any other part of Great Britain. Wages are paid which are the lowest in the British Empire. There is no regular work. The Unemployment Insurance and Contributory Pensions Acts do not apply and do not work there. Fishing is in decay. White fishing is abandoned. There are no piers and harbours worth talking about except under the Stornoway Harbour Trust. The deer forests are detrimental to the interests of the people and landlordism is detrimental to the tourist interest, which is one of

the hopeful sources of income and prosperity. If landlordism is against that source of prosperity, it is against the people of the Western Isles, and for that reason we are against landlordism.
There are several other industries that could be developed. They have the raw materials for the Harris tweed industry at their doors. It has only to be manufactured. But a market has to be found, and again the possibilities of co-operative marketing can be investigated by the Secretary of State, who is an authority on the subject and who would find it very easy to control the industry on the same lines as he has succeeded in organising others. This industry must be restored for the crofters themselves.
There are holdings needed in the Western Isles. There are about 1,000 squatters in Lewis alone waiting for holdings, and thousands of others in the Highlands waiting for holdings on land that is occupied by deer. The first thing to be done is to satisfy that demand. The second is to consider the position of those whom the Department has already settled. The very necessities of life are denied to the people who are living in houses for which they are paying far too high rates of interest and have other liabilities. With the exception of a couple of towns there is no communal sanitary system at all for 40,000 people in Lewis and Harris. It would be a disgraceful, unthinkable thing in any other part of the British Isles. Yet this is the state generally in the Western Isles. Outside Stornoway and Tarbert and the few smaller towns in the Hebrides there is no such thing as a communal water supply. Many hon. Members who have come from the distressed areas, and have talked about them here, will begin to think that they are living in our Celtic dream of paradise if they compare it with the Western Isles as they actually exist. Without water supplies the problem of sanitation can never be solved. It is fundamentally necessary, if you are to have proper sanitation, to have a water supply. Rupert Brooke praised "The benison of hot water." In most parts of Great Britain we grumble if we do not have hot water, but in the Western Isles they are denied the benison of cold water. Here I wish to quote a letter which I have received from North Uist:


The following facts we beg to lay before you. In regard to water supplies, our domestic supply is obtained from shallow surface wells. These in many cases are merely dip hole wells and are unprotected by either wall or fence, so that it is impossible to keep such wells free from the contamination of animals or from refuse thrown about by the wind. In winter during heavy rains the water falls into them carrying impurities of all sorts, and the surrounding soil being of a soft nature soon turns into mud with the tramping of people and cattle. In summer these wells, not having their source from springs, soon dry up, and on this happening we are compelled to use loch water which in itself is merely a shallow stagnant pool, and these lochs are the common drinking places of cattle. Surrounding them are the houses of crofters with their steadings and conveniences, and their drainage with all impurities naturally fall into these basins of filth, so that it is quite obvious to anyone that our condition is worthy of due consideration"—
that is putting it very mildly—
and we earnestly appeal to you to give your support in altering our grievances.
They have been very patient up to now, and they are patient still, but that is no reason whatever for continuing these grievances, and for continuing to neglect remedying all these grievances, which are legitimate. They are not asking for luxuries, but for fundamental necessities —things like water supply, roads and decent houses. It is regrettable that these conditions should be allowed to exist whatever Government is in power. I cannot but think that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give us that for which we ask—a new deal for the Highlands. I cannot but think that, knowing these facts for himself, and, no doubt, sympathising with the condition of the people who are enduring these grievances, he will give very earnest consideration to these problems and give of the very best in his position to remedy them, and give us something better in the Western Isles than has obtained up to the present. The people in the Western Isles never ask for very much themselves, but they are determined now, especially when they have begun to see with the light of political enlightenment which, until very recently, was denied to them. I am not boasting at all, but now they begin to see the position because they are able to visit the towns, and, in isolated cases, to send their sons to the universities. They say that if the minister and the doctor can send their sons to the university why

cannot they do so, as they keep the minister and the doctor? The Government keep the doctor, too, by perpetuating these conditions of ill-health and the lack of sanitation, water supplies, by-roads and so on, and by not tackling these problems.
These people have been patient up to the present, but they are getting very impatient now, and I am encouraging them. There was once a famous rising in connection with the Land League, and the Government, unless something is done, may have to tackle another such rising again. We are not so very unlike the Irish to which an hon. and learned Friend referred some time ago. It will be remembered that the Irish rose up and challenged, not only the Government, but the whole British Empire. And Ireland won! I am not asking for methods of violence, and I am not threatening, as one Irish Member is said to have done, "with an awful countenance." I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland can beat me with his countenance, with all respect to him; but we must persist in retaining the rights for which our forefathers fought, and we intend to retain those rights. We intend to put up a pretty good struggle before we stop pestering the Secretary of State and Governments. But I do hope that he is going to give us new hope and a new deal, and that we do not appeal to-night in vain.

8.33 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: May I, like the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) upon his maiden speech. He has chosen a subject which naturally, is very near to my heart, and he elucidated what he had to say in a very clear and convincing manner, but I cannot say that, if I were putting down that particular Motion, I should have used the words which he has used, or have put it down in that particular form, nor indeed would I have adopted the particular method that he used to support it. For a moment or two I almost thought that he was going to assert that Greenock was the capital of the Highlands, and that, very naturally, is a subject which touches me rather closely. We know the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for


Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), but now I see a new star has risen in the firmament.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If you fellows had defended the Highlands in the way that you ought to have done, you would not need to do it to-night.

Sir M. MACDONALD: I do not know in what particular respect the hon. Member wishes to say that I or others like me should have defended the Highlands, butI can say with perfect self-confidence that I have done my utmost to defend and to help them on every occasion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Look what they are.

Sir M. MACDONALD: When the hon. Gentleman speaks he may say wherein I and others like me have been remiss. Certainly he has given no indication of it up to the present. The points put forward by the Mover and seconder of the Motion have almost entirely dealt with the Islands and not with the Highlands. The hon. Member for the Western Isles, very properly, stated that he would deal with the Islands. The area of Scotland is 30,000 square miles while the Highlands area is over 14,000 square miles and the Islands area about 3,000 square miles or, roughly, about one-fifth of the total area of the Highlands. Four-fifths of the area of the Highlands is on the mainland, and that has hardly been dealt with. In supporting the Motion and in seconding it the two hon. Members have made strong references to deer forests.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Quite right, too.

Sir M. MACDONALD: I can say with reasonable justification that I know the Highlands as well as anybody. My own county has something less than one-third, possibly one-fourth of the whole area of the Highlands, and I know it intimately. The suggestion that the deer forests can, somehow or other, at some future time be cultivated, is utterly beyond the question of the day. No one has ever suggested that the vast bulk of the deer forests could in any way be cultivated. There are reasons, climatic and geological, which prevent that, and nobody has yet suggested how those reasons could be overcome. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that deer forests can be brought into cultivation, but it is essential for them to

have in mind some scheme whereby that can be done. Nobody has ever yet stated how it can be done.
The question of deer forests has arisen in my lifetime. When I was a child the whole of the deer forest area of the Central Highlands of Scotland was let to a well known sportsman of those bygone days for £50 a, year. One small portion of the vast area that he rented was let in recent years for £4,000 a year. Deer shootings were let long before I was born, but as a general statement it is accurate to say that during my lifetime the great increase in deer forests has taken place. There is a great swingback at the present time in the value of vast sporting estates. There had been a great and rapid rise in the value of the deer forests and there had been a tendency on the part of proprietors to turn other lands into deer forests. The Government of the day ought to have taken steps to stop that, but the unfortunate thing is that our legislation is always belated. As the Prime Minister said the other day, under democratic government we are apt to be a couple of years after the date. Legislation ought to have been introduced to prevent the turning of other lands, sheep farms, into deer forests, but that remark does not apply to the vast bulk of the deer forests area. It is right that all the areas that have been added as deer forests in recent years should be turned back once again to sheep farms.
In the deer forests areas along the little streams which pass through the valleys there are here and there small portions of land which have been washed by the stream coming down, and as a consequence they are now capable of cultivation. In by-gone years, when life was lived at a much lower stage than it is to-day, those little patches of land were cultivated, and the ruins of houses are still visible alongside them. In the early years of my coming to this House I asked myself whether it was possible to put men back again on to the land in some of these areas, and for that purpose I bought the biggest maps of Inverness-shire that I could get, the 6-inch maps of the whole county. I had 92 huge sheets. I looked at them in my office and wrote to my agent asking him to write to the 62 minor agents for whom he was responsible on my behalf throughout my constituency. I asked him to get


them to write saying whether there was any land in their vicinity that could be recultivated and might be occupied for that purpose if houses were built and other amenities provided. The replies came back but there was no suggestion of settlement. I kept the maps for the purpose of handing them out if any man said: "I know where you could settle someone, provided a new home were laid down." I intended to ask them to mark on the map the suitable site so that I could send it to the Scottish Office.

Mr. M. MacMILLAN: To what period is the hon. Member referring?

Sir M. MACDONALD: It may have been six to seven years or more. I think I know of odd places where some such settlement might take place, but I am trying to give a fair picture to the House of the deer forests and I must confess that while I know of a certain number of places that might be selected for cultivation, they are few and far between. The vast bulk of the deer forests must remain as they are for ever until some scientific person comes along and suggests how the change can take place. I have not yet heard how that change can take place and how the ground can be made suitable for settlement purposes. Probably what has misled many hon. Members and a great many other people is the question of the grouse moors. Sheep and grouse go together, but sheep and deer do not as the general rule.

Mr. M. MacMILLAN: May I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member must remember that we are not in Committee. He has expressed his views at some length and must allow the hon. Member to express his views.

Sir M. MACDONALD: In the case of grouse moors, which is generally lower land, no doubt an alteration could take place, such as has taken place on the Western seaboard, in the Island of Skye and in the Western Islands, and probably people could be settled on little patches of land which are suitable for cultivation. But these places are but few. Some parts of these grouse moors might be taken over, and also parts of the sheep runs made into smaller settlements rather

than the big sheep farms which exist to-day. If that were done no doubt far more people could be accommodated in the country than is the case at the present moment. When I think of the crofting element on the Western seaboard I remember a question which I put two years ago to the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the population in Skye, that is the school population. I was told that the number of children had decreased from 2,600 in 1913 to 1,400 at the time when the last available figure was given. Every croft in Skye was occupied as far as I knew, though there might be an odd one unoccupied, yet the school population had greatly decreased. It had decreased at a much greater rate than the decrease in the birth rate justified. As a result of correspondence I found that when the occupant of a croft died and the heir was being looked for it was often a man past middle life, who had probably worked in the south of Scotland. He goes to live on the croft as a home for his old age, but there are no young children growing up.
I think the Secretary of State should inquire whether the law of succession might not be altered. I do not want to stop a man who has worked in the south getting a comfortable home in the Highlands, but I am more anxious that the race should persist; and it cannot persist if such a tenancy happens to be the general tendency. It would eliminate the Highland race in a short time. From my personal knowledge I think too many instances of that kind arise. If a succession law was made that no man over 35 years of age should succeed we might reasonably anticipate that children would grow up and that the Highland race would continue. Except for a suggestion regarding fishing the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion made few proposals which would be a really serious contribution towards stopping the decrease in population. Let. me deal with that side of the matter if I may. I would suggest that the Secretary of State should earnestly consider with the Forestry Commission a vast increase in afforestation. When afforestation was being carried out in my constituency to the west of Loch Ness I had same correspondence with Sir John Sutherland, who was then the technical head of the Forestry Commission. I asked him what would be the effect on population of


forestry, and I was amazed at the figures he gave me, the increase was so enormous. It was far greater than either sport or sheep would give. Knowing that Sir John thoroughly knew his subject after long years of experience I had no hesitation in accepting his figures, and I feel justified in asking that a vast increase in the amount of afforestation should be undertaken for the benefit of the Highlands and to support a larger population on the land.
I could have dealt also with fishing, but I think it is of little use asking for an alteration of the three-mile limit or a stoppage of international trawling. That subject has been brought before this House again and again in Debate but nothing has even been done, however desirable it might appear. It may be that dropping water will wear away a stone and it might be justifiable to insist day after day on this particular subject, but I feel that more constructive suggestions should be put before the Government. The Secretary of State should consider helping an industry which was choked by the trawlers before the three-mile-limit was introduced. The inshore fishing industry around the Western Isles was first-class. The three-mile limit was introduced, but the trawlers paid no attention to it, and only last year was a Bill passed by this House forbidding illicit trawling. But the passing of a Bill in this House is not enough, for whatever may be on the Statute Book, people need not pay any attention to it if there is nobody to enforce the law and arrest them. I understand that steps have been taken to make control more effective than has hitherto been the case. All these steps, however, have been taken after the industry has been choked. The industry needs resuscitation, and the only possible way of resuscitating it is by forming a fund with money from which local people could purchase boats and the necessary gear. Moreover, all these inshore boats are bound to be slow in going from the fishing-grounds to a point on the mainland to get rid of their catch, either at Kyleakin or Mallaig in my constituency. Fast transport ought to be provided for such inshore fishing, and possibly there ought to be provided at these places ice stations where the fish could be preserved so that when it reached the market it would be in a reasonable and fresh condition.
With regard to public roads, about which the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) spoke, it is not only in the Western Isles that roads are bad, but also in other parts of the Highlands. The hon. Member was right when he said that the slowness with which the five-year programme is being pursued is almost a scandal. It is now two years since it was adumbrated and agreed to, but very little indeed has been done. I know it takes a long time even to make the survey, but for all that, very much greater progress could have been made than in fact has been made. This is a matter which the Secretary of State for Scotland might very well take up with his colleague the Minister of Transport. There are, however, roads other than those with which the Ministry of Transport has to deal. The Ministry deals with Class 1, 2 and 3 roads, but there is a great number of parish roads in the Highlands. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions has a great number of those roads in his constituency. They are maintained by small local subsidies in the respective areas. That was right and just until the advent of the motor car. Formerly, the roads were reasonably good ones for the purpose of foot traffic, sheep, occasionally cattle, and sometimes a small vehicle or two moving at a slow pace;; but motor cars whisk around the twisting corners, scoop out furrows and leave the roads in such a condition that the cost of repairing them is far greater than otherwise it would be.
The Secretary of State for Scotland might very well approach the Minister of Transport and ask him whether, seeing that it is motor cars that are the trouble, other roads than those in Class 1, 2 and 3 might not rank for a grant from the Ministry. I have pointed out many times that, so far as the Highland constituencies in particular are concerned, a fundamental error was made in connection with the grants in the first instance. When the block grant was decided upon, it was intended that, where the population was small and the roads long, the weighting should be in favour of those counties where there was a small number of people per mile of the road. In fact, that is not exactly what has happened. One finds that counties with 100 and over 100 people per mile of the road get 50 people added. A hundred people are


counted as 150, 200 as 250, and so on, in order to arrive at the rate; but when it comes to the poor counties, with a small population and long roads, what happens? A county such as my own has only 38 people added. One county in England is particularly badly hit in that respect, and I think the Welsh members should look after Radnorshire as I am looking after my own county. The weighting under the Local Government Acts needs readjustment, because I believe a fundamental error was made in allocating these grants which militates against the poorer counties, which were intended to benefit, and prevents them from getting the benefit intended.
Then the Secretary of State for Scotland might reintroduce a Bill which his predecessor introduced, that is to say, the Piers and Ferries Bill. There was a third item in that Bill—harbours. At the time, I understood that harbours were the contentious part of the Bill. If that is still the case, why not pass the piers and ferries part, which is non-contentious? The matter is extremely urgent. There is a ferry next to my town of Inverness, over a short strip of 600 yards of water into Ross-shire, the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Dominions. To-day there is no ferry, although there had been a ferry from time immemorial. What has happened The ferry is in private hands. In my view, no ferry ought to be in private hands, but ought either to be in the hands of a strong company or owned by the county council or a large burgh. I pressed the Provost of my burgh to take action, and, now that the ferry has been stopped, to put on an adequate service. What has happened has been a regular farce. The proprietor is evidently not a wealthy man. He obtained a suitable ferry boat to replace the unsuitable one he already had. It was towed up round the coast from somewhere in the South, and sank. He purchased another and again, in bad weather off the West of Scotland, it sank. After a still longer interval he got a third and endeavoured to get it passed through the Caledonian Canal, but after passing through one lock it stuck in the next and could not get any further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not tell them that.

Sir M. MACDONALD: here is a case in which power ought to be given to local authorities to step in, but apparently there is nothing in the law as it stands that would allow the burgh to do what I have been suggesting and to take over this ferry. Apparently a provision was included in the Act of 1908 allowing county councils power of that kind. In this case the county council and the burgh should jointly have a right of control over this ferry. That is why I urge the Secretary of State to reintroduce the Piers and Ferries Bill as quickly as possible, in order to put an end to a ridiculous state of affairs, which involves the great inconvenience to a large number of people. I have heard that children who live on the other side of the ferry have to go 25 miles round to attend school.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Member not ashamed of that statement?

Mr. EDE: Do they get there in time?

Sir M. MACDONALD: I have referred to the case of the ferries and, as regards piers, it is equally important that something should be done. If the Bill to which I refer, which has already been presented to this House and read the First time, were brought in again and quickly passed, situations such as I have described would be avoided and great benefit would accrue to the whole community.
My last words will be on the tourist industry. Some time ago the Secretary of State was reported as having expressed the hope that we Highland people would not become waiters. I do not know whether he was correctly reported or not, or whether I gathered correctly from the Press the effect of his statement and I am subject to correction. But I understood, at all events, that he did not want us to develop our tourist industry too much, lest we might become waiters.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have waited long enough for something to be done.

Sir M. MACDONALD: The right hon. Gentleman himself comes from the Border and one of the slogans of the people there is, I believe, "Wha daur meddle wi' me."

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They believe in helping themselves. They do not wait.

Sir M. MACDONALD: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that all those who look after the tourist industry in the Highlands, all the gamekeepers and other people concerned in that industry, in any form, are just as independent-minded as the people of the Border. The fact that they are concerned with the tourist industry has no influence on their personal conduct. They help the general public who visit the Highlands to enjoy themselves when they come there, but their characteristics remain the same and they are just as independent as ever. Last year, owing mainly to political conditions on the Continent, there was a great influx of tourists into the Highlands. I think I heard the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) referring to Skye, make the statement that the people there had notices up to the effect that they did not want visitors or tourists there. I do not think that is the case generally. The people of the Highlands, I believe, are delighted that their country should be the playground and the health resort of the people who live in and around the big towns of the South. It is necessary that the people from those areas should have an outlet and it is preferable that they should have that outlet in their own country, instead of spending their money in foreign countries. It is a financial advantage to all if they spend their holidays at home, and the Highlands are specially adapted to that purpose. There are many ways in which the tourist industry in the Highlands could be benefited, if the Secretary of State cared to give his mind to the question.

Mr. EDE: By a reduction of charges, for instance.

Sir M. MACDONALD: There is one suggestion which I would make and which would, I am sure, please the hon. Member opposite. As long as the deer forests and grouse moors exist, only the wealthy can enjoy them, but there is also fishing. There are hundreds of Highland lochs and I would like to see these taken over from the proprietors and made public under, say, the county councils. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) shakes his head, but I think the county councils would be the right people, and as soon as such powers were given to the county councils, the proper people would be elected to those bodies to see that those facilities

were taken advantage of properly. We live in a democratic country and we shall continue to use democratic methods as long as we possibly can in developing the resources of our country. The fishing in the Highlands could be made to give pleasure to vast numbers of people who, to-day, when on holiday there, are debarred from fishing because, in every place, the sporting tenant has the sole fishing rights. In such ways as these—and there are a number of other suggestions which I could make but I do not wish to detain the House longer—I feel that the Highlands could be made far more use of and far more people maintained there, than is the case at present

9.14 p.m.

Mr. CASSELLS: I had looked forward to this Debate, having in mind the Debate on Scottish Estimates which took place in this House not many months ago, when, in my opinion, the Scottish Members taught the House a lesson in brevity. Each speaker on that occasion kept to a strict limit of 15 minutes. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same about this Debate. I appreciate, however, the opportunity which has been afforded us of dealing with Scottish affairs, first because I am a Scotsman and secondly because of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson), to which I listened attentively. It is not so many years ago since my hon. and learned Friend in Hamilton Academy was teaching me the intricacies of Boyle's Law and the principles of Archimedes, and I think, after hearing his speech tonight, hon. Members will agree with me that we look forward to his future participation in our Debates. I often wonder when Scottish interests will receive the attention which they deserve. It seems to me that Scottish interests and Scottish independence are being flung further and further into the background. We have lost the Stone of Destiny, and we now find that we have lost Wallace's sword. Whether it will ever turn up again is 'a matter of mere conjecture.
The topic which this House is now discussing is the question whether or not there is distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and I wish to ask the Secretary of State categorically whether or not he admits that such distress does exist. I am perfectly satisfied


that there can be only one possible answer to that query, and that answer is definitely that distress does exist. Once we get to that point, hon. Members on this side, and, I am sure, hon. Members opposite also, desire to know what is to be the Government's policy for dealing with that distress. If you take Inverness-shire, with which the last speaker dealt, or the county of Argyll, or the county of Dumbarton, which I have the honour to represent, and if you go through any of those three areas, you will find complete confirmation of the point made by the first two speakers, namely, that the beasts of the field seem at all times to have preference over the human beings living in those districts.
If you take, for example, the life of an ordinary Scottish crofter, what is it? He may be a married man with five or six children, and he has a small holding of his own. His family grows up, he is able to absorb one or two of them in his croft, but unfortunately a point of time inevitably arrives when there is no work on the croft for certain members of the family. They go to the city and look for work, and in many cases they are completely unsuccessful, and we find men from the crofts in Employment Exchange queues in our large cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, too proud, unfortunately, to go back to their own family circle and admit defeat, in so far as the search for employment is concerned. Should these circumstances be? The right hon. Gentleman is bound to admit that in a well ordered state of society such circumstances should never be tolerated. It cannot be said that this is a. state of affairs that has arisen within the past few years. As the first speaker very properly pointed out, it is due to an accumulation of circumstances, not of recent origin, but going back as far as 1715 and 1745, Government after Government in this House crushing and oppressing the Scottish people, depriving them of all the rights, privileges, and interests to which a properly cultivated and civilised nation is entitled.
These are generalities, but let me refer to the question of housing, which has not yet been touched upon. Two days ago I put a pointed question to the Minister sitting on the Front Bench, and I asked whether it was the intention of the

Government to deal with the vexed question of decontrol. The categorical reply which I received was to the effect that this problem would not again come up for consideration until 1938. Is the Minister aware of the circumstances which presently exist, due to the almost universal decontrol of subjects? Is he aware that, with poverty and unemployment going hand in hand in Scotland at the present time, with house after house getting out with the control of the Rents Restriction Acts, there is no definite security of tenure and no limit placed on the shoulders of the landlord in so far as the rent which he is entitled to charge is concerned?
There is the most invidious position: I am not saying that all landlords are bad—that would be foolish—but that the tenants are entitled to have protection from the bad landlords, and what we find in all our Scottish areas is that a landlord will go to John Jones, who is unemployed, and say to him, "I want, not £10 a year, but £15 a year." John Jones says, "I cannot do it." There is a prospective tenant outside who is prepared to pay the £15 a year, and John Jones is evicted. The sheriff has absolutely no discretion in the matter, and the new tenant goes in, paying £15 a year. In a few months' time the same vicious circle starts again. The landlord is not even satisfied with the £15. He has another tenant who is prepared to pay £20; out goes the second man, and in goes the third man. The vicious circle is even worse than that. I can give the Minister cases where the landlords are not merely satisfied with that, but where they have actually got to the stage of turning to the incoming tenant and saying, "Not only are you to pay £15 a year if you are to get this subject, but you will go to a certain furniture shop and purchase your furniture there, whether on the hire purchase system or not."

Mr. GUY: Cannot John Jones go to the land court?

Mr. CASSELLS: The land court does not apply in these cases. I am dealing with subjects—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that we are dealing with the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. CASSELLS: But there are urban areas in the Highlands, Sir, and it is to those areas that I am making very definite reference. I trust that in the light of the information which I have given to the Minister, he will reconsider the answer which he gave me two days ago in the hope that something of advantage will accrue. Apart from this particular question of decontrol, housing in the Highland areas is not being dealt with as it ought to be dealt with. We have reactionary authority after reactionary authority coming forward and completely stultifying any effort made on the part of this or any other Government to deal with the housing problem. To take my own constituency, I will give two illustrations. On the shores of one of the lochs is a house no less than 120 years old, tenanted by a husband, wife, and five young children. It has a cement floor, no proper drainage, no proper ventilation, nor even a thatched roof on it, but a corrugated iron roof, held in position by an iron band, and no lavatory accommodation. What does the tenant do? He deposits his effluent from the dry closet on the shores of the nearby loch.
Take another case that came within my purview only a few weeks ago, of an unemployed man living in a single apartment. The only means of ventilation was the chimney. He was found suffocated. I lay that man's death on the shoulders of the local authority, which ought to have dealt with this particular matter but failed in its duty. There is a third consideration in dealing with this housing question. The failure to deal expeditiously with the erection of houses is curbing industry in our country. I have here a letter from a firm, dated 9th December, 1936, and I am informed by the individual who sent me this letter that a similar letter has been sent to the Minister. I will quote briefly from the letter. It states:
I am again writing to you on the subject of housing at Rosneath. The position is becoming more serious every day. As you are probably aware, we have laid down a fairly large plant at Rosneath and sunk considerable capital in it. We are at present employing approximately 100 men. Of this total there are only nine householders in Rosneath or Clynder area. Others travel from as far as Old Kilpatrick, Dumbarton, Alexandria, Helensburgh, Garelochhead, Gourock and Cove. With the Clyde shipyards becoming busy, we are losing our men daily"—

I am sure that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) will be able to corroborate that statement—
and at the present moment we are in grave danger of failing to complete our present contracts in time. For your information we may say that our present contracts amount to approximately £50,000, to be completed by the 1st June, 1937.
This is the point:
The most serious aspect is, however, that we are unable to quote for new work, and during the last 10 days we have received invitations to tender for work from the War Office and the Admiralty, and several contracts from abroad. In each case we have had to turn these down.… You will realise that the shortage of housing at Rosneath has now reached a point where not only are we losing a great deal of potential business, but our very existence as a firm is imperilled.
The Department cannot say that they have not had previous knowledge of this, because the letter states:
I may say that as far back as 1929, I had a visit here from an official from the Board of Health, Edinburgh. … He expressed the opinion at that time that the need for houses at Rosneath was very urgent indeed, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is much more so to-day.
There you have a concrete illustration of the fact that as a result of housing not having been dealt with as it ought to have been there is a possibility of this firm requiring to be closed down and unemployment in this area automatically becoming very bad.
Leaving housing, let me put this question to the Minister: Can the Highlands be developed? Let us have a fair, a straight and an honest answer to that question. Is the Government's attitude to be that as far as the Highlands and the Islands of Scotland are concerned it is to be a case of stand Scotland where she did? If the Government are prepared to lay their cards on the table and to give us a concrete proposal I am satisfied that hon. Members on this side of the House will give it the careful scrutiny which it will merit. Have the Government any policy? I am unfortunately driven to only one possible conclusion, and that is that the present Government have no tangible policy in regard to the Highlands of Scotland. I put a question two days ago with regard to a survey of Scotland. It was brushed aside. Deputations from all over Scotland came to this House asking for a Forth Bridge


and a Tay Bridge. They were brushed aside. The right hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. T. Johnston) put forward the suggestion of a Mid-Scotland ship canal. It was brushed aside. I put a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the possibility of the electrification of railways and it was dealt with in the same fashion.
Reference has properly been made to the tourist industry. Repeatedly I have raised questions in this House with regard to this industry, because I am absolutely satisfied that in the proper development of the tourist industry lies the salvation of the people of Scotland. If we had a Government of progress and understanding who were prepared to develop Scotland in that way, is it too much to say that our problems would disappear?

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Why does the hon. Member always turn the question to depending on the Government? Why is it not possible for Scotland to do some of these things herself without leaving it to other people to take the initiative?

Mr. CASSELLS: The hon. Member knows quite well—we all know—that there is a considerable body of public opinion growing up in Scotland which expresses complete dissatisfaction with the manner in which Scottish interests have been attended to. He knows quite well that as far as the particular point to which he has referred is concerned that requires legislation. If we take the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas we find that in 1934—and I am using the case of England in support of my argument—the total income from the tourist industry in England approximated to £25,000,000. Scotland is far more favourably placed than England in so far as this industry is concerned. Take my own constituency, with Loch Lomond, a place which has been absolutely maligned and forgotten in the past. If Loch Lomond, instead of being placed in Scotland, and under the whim of the National Government, were placed in the United States of America it would be developed as it ought to be developed and remuneration would follow.

Mr. ORR-EWING: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We shall have very long speeches if there are many interruptions.

Mr. CASSELLS: No reference has been made to public health statistics as far as Scotland is concerned. Scotland is a land ideally situated, and has been most properly described as of the valley and the flood. It is windswept from east to west and from north to south, and on the average it is many hundreds of feet above sea level. Yet we find the astonishing fact that our death rate is proportionately much higher than that of the mother country, England.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. MACQUISTEN: We were a civilised country long before England.

Mr. CASSELLS: I can see that there are still some real Scotsmen present in the House, but what I want to point out is that the death rate in Scotland is 1·1 higher than in England. It is higher than that of Belgium, and even England's rate suffers in comparison with that of Sweden, 11·2. Germany's rate is 10·9. The rate which puts Scotland to shame is Norway's, which is 9·8. We want to know why, if that can be done in Norway, it cannot be done in Scotland. The only reason is that in Norway they have a progressive type of Government which is prepared at all times to deal with questions of public health as they ought to be dealt with.
Are we to take it that the Scotland of yesteryear is dead? I hope it is not to be said of Scotland that it is to be a case of "Lochaber no more." Are there no Ministers on the Government Front Bench in whom we can place confidence? I am beginning to doubt it. I am prepared to give them, even at this time, the benefit of any doubt that may exist. We have the Secretary of State for Scotland, who may be a bit dour at times, but I believe that if we put forward a real tangible case to him he will, like a real Scotsman, give it the consideration it merits. We have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, another Scotsman. I would have thought that he at least would have been sitting on that bench to-night. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was."] He is not here now. He is a man who is primarily concerned with the control of the purse-strings of this problem. We have the Minister's deputy, the Standard


Bearer of Scotland. Is he going to do nothing? Is the carrying of the Standard of Scotland to be a pure fiction?
We want the Minister responsible to carry this crusade of ours right into Scotland and to deal with Scottish problems adequately. The Scottish people are a proud people, and rightly so. We believe, and I also think rightly, that they are the salt of the earth. We are not prepared to allow this Government or any other Government to cast our glories of the past into the limbo of forgotten things. I trust that some good will accrue from this Debate and that the attention of the Government will at least have been drawn to the vexing position of Scotland. I trust, too, that the Minister responsible will do what I asked his predecessor to do, to rise like Wallace refreshed, cleaving with the broad sword of public opinion our views into the stultified and Sassenach outlook of the Government.

9.38 p.m.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: The hon. Member who has just spoken asked a very pertinent question—does distress exist in the Highlands and Islands? I have listened carefully throughout the Debate for some tangible evidence that it does, and I remain entirely unconvinced. Hon. Members opposite have followed the device of picking out an extreme case here and there, painting in a lot of purple patches, and then asking us to accept it as a picture of affairs as they are in the Highlands and Islands. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) performed a useful service when he debunked the wild statements made by hon. Members opposite on the subject of deer forests in Scotland. There is no subject about which more unutterable nonsense is talked and written than the deer forests of Scotland. It was refreshing to hear from him the statement of a practical man familiar with the problem. Anyone with an eye to agricultural land must know that there is a great area in Scotland that never can in any circumstances be turned into agricultural land. We know also that there is a considerable area of land, most of it second and third-rate land, which has at one time been cultivated, but no one can produce any practical proposals for bringing it into cultivation now.
I do not like the terms in which this Motion is drawn. It refers to the wide-

spread and long-continued distress in the Highlands and Islands. I rather suspected there was a cat in the bag, and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) let it out when he began to talk about the distressed areas. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Motion and those who sit with him seem to suffer from a complex. They have got what I might call the distressed areas complex. The distressed area is a very good stick with which to beat the Government. Therefore, they argue, the more distressed areas the better, and in their search for more and better distressed areas they have hit on the brilliant idea of adding the Highlands and Islands to their list. They are reckoning without the people who live in the Highlands and Islands. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) spoke about Scottish pride. I wish that the hon. Members who have spoken on the other side had shown a little more of it to-night, for the one burden of their song has been begging from first to last. There has not been a single suggestion that any of the people in the Highlands and Islands will not do anything or are doing anything to help themselves.
It is not doing any service to those areas to refer to them in the terms of distressed areas. It does no good to paint an imaginary picture of distress which does not exist, because it will only prejudice the real case of the Highlands and Islands. I claim to speak for roughly one-quarter of the area we are discussing, and I think that the two groups of Islands for which I speak are a fair sample of the rest of the Highlands and Islands—[HON. MEMBER7: "No"] —both from the industrial and agricultural point of view.

HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You know that they do not represent the rest of the Highlands at all. The conditions bear no comparison.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: The islands of Orkney and Shetland are part of the area known as the Highlands and Islands, and if hon. Members like to go far enough back in their history, they will find that they have been in the past in as unsatisfactory a state as it is alleged the other parts of the Highlands and Western Isles are in to-day. One of the


difficulties I have in my constituency is that so few people seem to know where these groups of islands are. That is apparently due to the fact that they are almost always inserted on the map half-scale either in the Moray Firth or on the Atlantic seaboard. It is my job to keep them on the map full scale in their proper place. The Orkney Islands lie close to the extreme north point of Scotland off Caithness, and most of them are visible, but the chief port for the islands is Aberdeen nearly 10 hours away by sea. There are 30 of the islands inhabited, and they are, generally speaking, flat and moderately fertile. The chief industries are agriculture, lobster fishing, and herring fishing; and there is a smaller industry, but an important one, kelp burning.
Orkney is one of the most interesting counties in Great Britain. It is an object lesson from the point of view of agriculture for the rest of the country, not merely for the Highlands and Islands, but for the whole of Great Britain. It is extraordinary that if you go into the history of the county you find a tale of continually expanding prosperity going back for 75 years, which is as far back as any figures go that I have been able to get. Further, there has been a rapid and unprecedented expansion of prosperity in the last 35 years. I am sorry to have to inflict a few figures on the House, but I hope hon. Members will bear with me, because the figures are very striking and ought to be much more widely known than they are likely to be from any official publication. Going back to 1870, we find that in Orkney the area under cereals and root crops was 47,000 acres and the area under rotation grass was 22,000 acres, a total of 69,000 acres of arable cultivation. In 1935 the area under cereals and roots was 45,000 acres, a very slight decrease of 2,000 acres, and the area under rotation grass had increased by more than 100 per cent. having gone up from 22,000 acres to 46,000 acres, bringing the total arable area up to 90,000 acres. That is a net increase of 21,000 acres in the land under crops and rotation grass, made up of an increase of 23,000 acres in rotation grass and a decrease of 2,000 acres in the area under roots and cereals.
The first question that will occur to any practical agriculturist is, where has this

enormous increase of 30 per cent. in the arable area come from, and how has it happened at the present time, when all over the rest of Great Britain more and more land is going down to permanent grass? Did it come from the breaking up of permanent grass? It did not, because if we look at the figures we find there has been an increase from 15,000 acres in 1870 to 18,000 acres in 1935. Therefore, the only place that this great increase in land under cultivation and under rotation grass—which is, of course, also under cultivation—must have come from the breaking in of rough hill pasture. That has been going on for years and is going on up to the present day. Any hon. Member who goes to Orkney, either by sea or aeroplane, will see the plough being driven through very unpromising hill land, and will see that land in the course of two or three years turned into permanent pasture. I want to emphasise that, although I have gone back pretty far, to 1870, the big change began in 1900, or round about then. What was the factor that led to that change? It was the introduction of wild white clover seed into the grass seed mixtures being sown; that, with the free use of artificial fertilisers such as basic slag and shell sand, has effected a complete revolution in the agriculture there. What was barren and almost useless land two generations ago is now verdant pasture producing astonishing quantities of beef and mutton and milk, not to mention eggs, and even honey.
I wish to emphasise that that change is still going on at the present day because I believe it has a lesson for the rest of the country. I want to look at this question from another point of view. What has been the effect of this improvement in agricultural methods on the stock-carrying capacity of that country? In the period mentioned, the cattle have increased from 22,000 head to 40,000 head, and not only is there an increase in numbers but there has been a complete transformation in quality. From carrying a smaller stock of very inferior native cattle they have progressed to carrying nearly double the number of the very best cattle produced in this country at the present day. That is not the end of the tale. During the same period the sheep stock has been increased from 25,000 to 75,000, an increase of 200 per cent. Extraordinary progress has also


been made in the poultry industry. I cannot give figures which go far back, but in Orkney at the present day nearly 600 fowls are carried per 100 acres of arable land, and I do not think that anywhere else in Scotland can that figure be equalled. The fowl population is nearly 500,000, and the export of eggs is over 3,000,000 dozen a year, the value being three times the net agricultural annual value of the county.
Does that look like widespread and long-continued distress? I submit that it presents a. picture of the exact opposite, and I want to see how we can account for this and whether there is any hope of getting other parts of the Highlands and Islands to share in this prosperity. What are the secrets of this extraordinary transformation in Orkney? There are several heads under which they can be put. I am inclined to put occupying ownership in the very forefront. If there is one sound thing in agriculture it is that where possible the man working the land should be the actual owner of it. Sixty-six per cent. of the land in Orkney is owned by the occupier. Some of that land has been owned by the occupiers from a very remote period, but the big move for occupying ownership took place after the war, it is of comparatively recent growth. It was an eye-opener to me, and would be to other hon. Members, to see what improvements men set about as soon as they acquire their holdings.
Next, or possibly this ought to come first, I am going to put hard work. I know of no place in Great Britain where the population, both male and female, work harder or more consistently for the results they obtain. Another important point is that these farms or small holdings. in Orkney are family farms, the whole family working together. They are not big farms, the average size of the holdings in Orkney being only 30 acres—that is technically a small holding—and yet we have got out of a county of small holdings a most extraordinarily prosperous agricultural industry. I admit that these holdings would be better if they were of 50 acres, because then they would carry a pair of horses. I am strongly of opinion, though I am not going into it to-night, that in all the land policy we have followed in the Highlands

and Islands in the past the greatest mistake has been in making the holdings far too small. Many persons have very often given up good jobs to come home to take these small holdings and have found their lives to be one long misery ever since. The holdings have not been big enough for them to make a. living. I hope that if there is any more breaking-up of land no holdings will be created smaller than 30 acres—I put that as a minimum.
All these things could not have been done if the people had not been highly intelligent and very progressive. The influence which education has had on agriculture in Orkney is worth noting. Many years ago, long before agricultural subjects were being taught in schools, or continuation classes had been thought of, there was in Orkney a teacher who was very much ahead of his time. He argued that if the bulk of his pupils were going to wrest their living from the soil the sooner they were brought into contact with the problems of the soil the better, and he evolved a scheme of education which made very full provision for doing that. He had classes of his own on agricultural subjects and ran experimental plots. It is not without significance that among the ablest farmers in Orkney at the present day are men who were taught by that teacher. I should also like to pay a, tribute to the education authority of that county, who have always taken very much the same attitude towards agricultural subjects. I must not forget the North of Scotland Agricultural College, and the work it has done in the provision of men and women lecturers in agriculture and allied subjects, who go to these distant parts of Scotland. They have been of immense benefit to these islands, and I think it will be found that there is not a farmer or smallholder in Orkney or Shetland who will not willingly testify to the very great benefit that this college has been to the Highlands and Islands generally.
Speaking as one of the Members for that part of the country, I must also pay a tribute to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I am a, farmer in the extreme North, in a much more isolated place than most that have been referred to to-night, and I am very conscious of the good work done by the Department of Agriculture, and of the benefit which we receive from it. I might mention the


scheme for the provision of well-bred bulls. That has changed the character of the stock in the county of Shetland. The Department has also supported the breeding of heavy horses, which is a somewhat important industry in Orkney, by means of grants which have been of very great use. Moreover, money has been made available for drainage, without which you can get no improvement at all in agriculture. Finally there is the encouragement of shows, which have done a great deal to bring people together and to promote discussion and healthy competition. All those influences have been at work in the county of Orkney.
The problem of Shetland is very different, The situation of these Islands is even more remote, if anything, than the Western Isles. I do not know whether hon. Members realise how far out into the North Sea the Shetland Isles lie. More than one-half of Shetland is considerably nearer Bergen in Norway than it is to Aberdeen. There are about 100 islands, and the country is entirely different from Orkney. It is very rugged, hilly, barren and stony, with a rocky coast. You do not get farms but there is a very large number of crofts. Crofting is the main industry, on the land, but there is a very important fishing industry, which includes haddock and herring fishing. If there is no work for them at home, the men of Shetland do not sit down and moan and groan about it. They go to sea.

Mr. GALLACHER: To see what?

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: Seafaring. They go all over the world, earn good money and then come back and settle down in their crofts. As for the women, every moment they can spare is devoted to knitting. Conditions there, so far as geography and industry are concerned, are very like those in the Western Isles. I know Shetland very intimately from end to end, and I can assure the House that there is no evidence whatsoever of widespread or long-continued depression there. All the evidence is to the contrary. One hon. Member referred to progress not having been so fast in these parts of the country as in others; I do not think that is the case. The improvement which has taken place in the economic position of the people in the Highlands and Islands has gone ahead relatively a good deal faster than in other

parts of the country. The real problem in the Highlands and Islands is not distress or lack of the opportunity of making a living; it is the lack of the ordinary amenities of civilisation.
What has happened there is that we have lagged behind while things elsewhere have been going ahead. The daily services which, in other parts of the country, we are apt to take as a matter of course, have not been developed there as far and as fast as they might have been. This arises from three causes: distance, small total population and scattered population. These areas cannot, out of their own resources, even with the large amount of Government help which they already receive, supply the people with the services which they demand and are justly entitled to demand in these days. The want of these amenities is the primary cause of the drift from the Highlands and Islands. A vicious circle has been established. The more people leave the Highlands and Islands, the more difficult it becomes for those who are left behind to keep up even the existing services. How to break that vicious circle is the problem.
The important subject of roads was touched upon by the hon. Member for Inverness. That is a very serious problem. We acknowledge with gratitude the recent undertaking of the Ministry of Transport to reconstruct the first-class roads and to pay the whole cost, but it is not the first-class roads which are the problem. We can get along with the ones that we have, although we are very glad to have them made better. The main question is the maintenance of existing parish roads and the making of the new roads for which there is a demand. The Ministry of Transport are not responsible and neither is the county council. It is a, matter for the district councils, but these councils can, by Statute, levy a maximum rate of only 1s. in the £. Therefore, they cannot raise enough money to keep the existing roads in repair, let alone make any new roads. That is one of the injustices. The problem is anomalous. It is possible to pick out one district where this problem does not exist at all, while next door there is a district where the product of a 1s. rate is quite inadequate to keep the roads in order.
These roads are going back, at the present time. They are bound to go still further back if nothing is done. I have here a list for 111 roads in Orkney and Shetland which are badly needed. Some of the petitions about these roads are 30 years old, and the people who signed them are getting grey, but nothing has been done to solve the problem. These roads would serve in some cases as many as 27 houses and 97 people, and vary from that down to small groups of perhaps half-a-dozen houses. One maxim can be laid down with absolute certainty in the Highlands and Islands, and that is: "No roads, no people."
On a previous occasion I gave an illustration of a small township very near my own home, a place called Colvidale on the east coast of Unst. Within living memory, within my own memory, that place had a dozen families living in it, and was quite a good little agricultural district. There is not a solitary soul there to-day, and the roofs are off the houses. The only reason why that place has got into that condition is that there was no road to it. The main road was within two miles, but was separated by a barren place of rocks and stones. After years of application for a road, the people, one by one, shut up their houses and went away. It is necessary to have roads in these days where people are living, because otherwise you deprive people of the benefit of much development and modern improvement in transport, if they have to walk three miles in order to get to a motor car. I hope the Secretary of State will give this problem special consideration. I am about to plant another memorandum on his office. I am afraid that my memoranda are as thick as autumn leaves in Vallombrosa in the Scottish Office; I only hope that they will form a compost from which, in course of time, much good fruit may come forth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness mentioned also the subject of piers. I do not want to say much more on that subject, except that I endorse what he said. In this country, when a road comes to a river, you expect a bridge by which to cross. We do not expect that; our boats are our bridges; but we feel most strongly that where our roads end, as most of them do, by the sea shore, we ought at least to have a boat slip, and, where it is necessary for a steamer to call, a pier. It is too late in the day to

be landing passengers and goods in the old way in small boats. I have done it myself; I know the difficulties and dangers; and I should be very glad to see the Piers and Harbour Bill brought in again. I hope it will be brought in again, because this is certainly a problem which should receive consideration. I wish to acknowledge the great help we have already received from the Department of Agriculture and the Scottish Office in this matter. Wherever a. good case is put up, help is given. But there is never enough money to do all that should be done, and, although improvements are being made, they are not going ahead nearly fast enough.
There are many other things that I might say, but I will only refer to the extraordinary failure of the Post Office—I am sorry that there is no one now present representing that Department—to provide us with the telephone and telegraph facilities we need. Shetland is not connected by telephone to Scotland even yet, and there are innumerable inhabited islands in Orkney and Shetland which are not connected to their county towns. A year or two ago, a number of men living on one of these islands had to go 16 miles by boat to the mainland of Shetland to get their mail. A gale sprang up, they were not able to get back for six weeks, and their wives and families had not the faintest notion whether they were alive or dead. I do not think that that sort of thing ought to exist in 1936. I believe it to be in the best interests of this country that we should keep these people in the Highlands and Islands on the land. They themselves wish to remain on the land, and I think they have a contribution to make to the national stream of life and to the national character which it is worth while to preserve. I feel that, if we could secure them a fair share of the ordinary amenities of civilisation to which we here are all accustomed, it would go a very long way to stop the present tendency to depopulation.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I very much regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is not able to be present to take part in the Debate. He had intended being here, but, unfortunately,


he is unwell to-day. I would like to add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) on the way in which he introduced this Resolution. Just 13 months ago he and I fought one another at the General Election, and, if he will allow me to say so, the manner in which he has moved this Resolution to-day will give great pleasure, not only to his constituents in Greenock, but also to his many friends in Dundee.
The hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major NevenSpence) made the astonishing statement that there was no distress in the Highlands and Islands. I think that, before making that statement, he might have taken the trouble to go into the Library and look at the local index of unemployment. If he had looked at the figure simply for the town of Wick, he would have seen that that town has a higher level of unemployment than a number of the areas which are classed as distressed. The depopulation of the Highlands is a very old story, and it is something which no one can deny. If you take the census figures for the last 10 years, or for the last 50 years, in the Highland counties there is always a continuous decline in population. A number of suggestions have been made in this Debate as to how the situation could be met. A number of references have been made to the tourist industry. It seems to me, as a Lowland Member, that the publicity which is put out on behalf of the Highlands as a holiday resort still falls very far short of the publicity put out by a great many foreign countries. It seems to me that the people who are responsible for publicity as regards the Highlands have a great deal to learn from most Continental countries. But, over and above that, there is still the idea that a great many people have that the Highlands as a holiday resort are simply the preserve of the rich; and there are a good many things that you cannot help noticing when you visit the Highlands—the hon. and learned Member for Greenock referred to some of them—which help to bear out the idea that the Highlands, in the words used by Kingsley of the English countryside, are simply the yard where the gentlemen play.
In the second place, there is the need, not only in the Highlands but also in the Lowlands, for better transport. References have been made to the fishing industry. I represent a trawling constituency, and I rather resent the strictures that are always passed on these occasions on the trawlers; but it is of course perfectly true that we are taking far too many fish out of the North Sea. I do not believe that the troubles of the inshore fishermen, at any rate on the east of Scotland, would be met if we simply enlarged the three-mile limit, and made it four miles or five miles. I believe it is necessary to go much further than that, and I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the suggestions which have been put forward from time to time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland to the effect that, instead of putting closing orders at certain periods on the distant fishing grounds of Bear Island, the White Sea, and those parts of the world, we should consider the advisability of closing certain areas in the North Sea. If by doing that we were able to give the North Sea a better chance to recover from the point of view of fishing, we should help not only the trawlers but the inshore fishermen as well.
I would like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) on the subject of afforestation. I know that this is a very familiar subject, but some hon. Members may recall that it was considered by a Departmental Committee as long ago as 1911. That committee said in their report:
The economic contrast between an area where the hills arc under wood and where they are devoted to grazing or sport is little short of amazing";
and they pointed out that, while 1,000 acres under sheep required only one or two shepherds, the same area under forest would require the services of 10 men. Perhaps the Secretary of State, when he replies, will tell us whether he is entirely satisfied that everything possible is being done in the matter of afforestation in the Highlands. These are one or two of the more practical issues which we have to consider when we are confronted with a Motion of this kind. But, after all, some of the problems that have been referred to are not confined simply to one part of Scotland.
In my view they are simply one aspect of that economic debility which for a great many years has been afflicting Scotland as a whole, and what we need is not just a new deal for the Highlands, but a new deal for the whole country. I am always a little suspicious of the people who describe themselves as planners, because very often they mean simply interference for interference sake, but it is vital in these days to have a plan in the sense of knowing where you want to go and where ultimately you want to arrive.
A supreme example of planlessness was provided by the way in which we have dealt with agriculture in the past few years by a number of sporadic ad hoc remedies adopted in order to meet this or that particular situation—things like the wheat quota and the sugar beet subsidy, affecting only certain parts of the country, which encouraged the very crops that we are least fitted to produce. The same thing is true of industrial depression. We have simply adopted one or two hasty measures in order to deal with one or two particular scheduled areas which were quite arbitrarily selected. When we consider problems which concern a, great area of this kind the same thing applies, and we have to decide, first of all, what are the kind of industries that we want to flourish in these areas. We have got, in fact, to have a long-term plan, partly for the Highlands, but also for Scotland as a whole. I welcome the establishment of the Economic Advisory Committee, because I think there was a great deal of truth in the remark of Professor Bowie, the head of the Dundee School of Economics, that there are plenty of good ideas, but they need to be quarried. They are not lying about loose on the surface. That remark was made with reference to the economic condition of Scotland by a man who has given as much attention to these matters as anyone living. I hope we shall not receive from the Economic Advisory Committee trivial recommendations dealing with some tiny aspect of this or that particular industry. I hope, when it gets into its stride, it will be used as an instrument to produce a comprehensive long-term policy for the economic rehabilitation not only of the Highlands but of Scotland as a whole.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It ill becomes the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) to throw the taunt at us that we are begging for the Highlands. It reminds me of the day of the Battle of Bannockburn. When Edward II was brought out to see the Scottish forces kneel in prayer, he said: "They kneel." Someone said, "They kneel, but not to you. These men will do or die." They won the battle. In spite of all the sneers that may be thrown at us, we will continue to stand up for the Highlanders and Islanders. But there is no comparison as far as Orkney and Shetland are concerned, the reason being that evidently the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland has never heard tell of the Highland clearings. Those clearings are largely responsible for the awful state of poverty and misery that exists at the present time in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman delivered his speech and then vanished. He ought to have had the decency, as is the general rule of the House, to wait to see if any one was going to reply to the speech which he had made, but he made his speech and then cleared out. He said that one of the complaints which he had to make about Shetland was that the people were going away and there was not a sufficient number of them left to continue to look after the state of the country and keep it in decent repair.
That is the kernel of the trouble of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The natives are being driven out of their houses just like dogs, driven out of the country and across the wide Atlantic sea to Canada, etc. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) stated that the number of children attending school in the Island of Skye was just over 1,000. In the Napoleonic or Peninsular War, which lasted 20 years, that island alone sent 10,000 men to the British Army and to-day it, could not send 1,000. That is what has happened. It is because of these dreadful conditions that we stand here and appeal for these men. I am satisfied that not only the Highlanders and Islanders, but their descendants in every part of the British Empire will be thanking the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson), who has


taken this opportunity to raise this very serious question. It is not only a serious question for the Highlands and Islands but it is a very serious item for the British Empire because—
A bold peasantry, a country's pride, When once destroyed can never be supplied.
We must remember too that—
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay.
There is no denying the fact, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will take action in this matter. I have paid him every tribute I possibly can, and he has a golden opportunity here to make a name for himself as the Secretary of State for Scotland. Here is a race, the Highlanders of Scotland, that defied Imperial rule in its mightiest day. We are the people descended from that ancient race, and here tonight we have had an individual who has had the hardihood to stand up in the House of Commons and say that we are begging. We are not begging. When we came here 16 years ago the language used to us was that it was sob stuff, and now they use a new term. We are begging? No, we are not begging. I have told these men time and time again. When I visited Lewis I was told that trawlers threw great stones at the small boats when they went out to sea. Trawlers coming within the three mile limit threw big stones and tried to sink them. I said, "Shoot them." That is my advice to them still, unless the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Government are going to take action.
I visit the Highlands and Islands of Scotland regularly and have done so for many years. I am in close contact with them, with the poorest of the poor, with the minister's wife and the doctor's wife, and they write to me regularly asking me to see whether I cannot do something to get their sons into positions, whether I cannot get some of my friends in Glasgow to take them into their offices. Why should these people be fleeing from their homes? The young men are very anxious to get into the big industrial centres and to secure decent jobs, because the conditions in their own localities are absolutely hellish, so much so that those who love

their native land and are prepared to die in defence of it, are only too anxious to flee from it.
I remember on one memorable occasion when an outstanding Member of this House suggested emigration. I stood against that idea. Why should the Highlanders and the Islanders leave their native land, the heather of which has been bedewed with their blood in defence of their native land? They are anxious to get to Glasgow in order that they may go back, perhaps with show and swagger, to show that they are something better than the lad left at home. We must change that. We must make the conditions in the Highlands and Islands such that the natives will not desire to flee away but will remain there. If the present conditions continue it will be a serious matter not only for the Highlands and Islands but it will be bad for the British Empire. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Dominions, now that he represents a Highland constituency, will add his weight to that of the Secretary of State for Scotland and see that the Highlands and Islands are attended to on this occasion as they have never been attended to by any Government since I have been here. I have appealed to every Government along these lines. The conditions in the Highlands and Islands are a standing disgrace to the British Government.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: In recent times it has been the practice among Scottish Members on a purely Scottish discussion to arrange among themselves to limit their orations to a maximum of 15 minutes. If ever that practice received justification it has been made apparent to-night, because for the first time we have failed to keep to that arrangement. At this late hour I do not propose to stand long between the Minister and his right to reply. It is obvious that the Government do not propose to resist this Motion in the Division Lobby. If that be so, the House will be committed to the terms of the Motion, which declare specifically,
This House calls upon His Majesty's Government to formulate without delay proposals designed to arrest depopulation and poverty among the remaining inhabitants.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) made a very long and


pleasant speech, and in fact he offered the only argument that has been put before the House against the Motion. He argued that in Inverness-shire there was no room for the accusation that the deer forests could be put to more profitable use, and that as far as the Highlands and the Islands were concerned the bulk of the land now under deer could be put to no other use than that to which it is at present put. Very skilfully he proceeded to say that the land could not be ploughed. It is upon record in the last annual report of the Department of Agriculture that:
Damage by red deer has been a serious problem for many years in Scotland, and proposals for legislative protection for smallholders and farmers from damage by deer have been made by departmental committees as far back as 1921, but owing to the difficulty of reconciling conflicting interests"—
that is a polite way of saying that landlordism is very strong—
no progress has been made.
There are uses other than ploughing up the land to which deer forest land can be put. Some of it can be used for an extension of grazing and some for cultivation. There is the case of Lusskintyre. A previous Government could see nothing for the men of Lusskintyre but that they should be kept permanently in Inverness gaol. They were in and out of gaol, I do not know how many times. Another Government came in and acquired a deer forest at Lusskintyre compulsorily, seized it, took the men out of Inverness gaol and put them back with the right to cultivate farms at Lusskintyre. And they are there yet. The Minister, in answer to a question of mine, some time ago said that within the past few years land has been converted from sheep farms into deer forests because the private landlord could not make ends meet with his land under sheep, and was compelled to transfer it into deer forests. The State has a right to step in on a matter of this kind. It is all very well t say that a private landlord, whose only interest is to make financial ends meet, cannot maintain his land otherwise than as a deer forest, but the Secretary of State, representing the community with wider interests to consider, the perpetuation of the race to secure, great social investments of capital to consider, wider interests of the community which the

private individual cannot be asked to consider, ought to step in and take it over. If land cannot be used productively and for the social advantage of the community by private individuals, there is no case whatever for occupancy by private individuals, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as representing the community, should step in and take it over. The hon. Member rather derided the idea that there was very much in this question of deer forests, but the last time I was in the Isle of Skye, going down the hill towards Sligachan, I saw, copied and photographed a notice stuck in a tree in the following words:
Warning to trespassers and visitors. The soft-nosed bullet carries far and inflicts a nasty wound. Visitors are warned to keep away.
It is common knowledge that lands have been closed, that roads have been closed and that everything possible has been done to turn vast tracts of the Highlands of Scotland into a wilderness, a sportsman's paradise.
There is one thing on which I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness and that is the proposal he made that the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I would add, along with the Forestry Commissioners, the Crown Lands Commissioners, and every other public and semi-public board which is owning or controlling land in the North of Scotland—should get a public utility body formed at once to take over all the fishing rights for the State. If that were done the poor man could be given a chance to enjoy the sport of angling, and it would be possible to attract thousands and thousands of people to the Highlands of Scotland every year, certainly during the holiday months. Something on a big scale could be done quickly for the tourist traffic. If £80,000,000 a year can be obtained from the tourist traffic in Switzerland; if France can get more, if Canada can get still more, what are we doing that we allow a mere handful of people—many of them aliens at that—a mere handful of people for whom the nation should have no concern whatever, to put up notices:
The soft-nosed bullet carries far and inflicts a nasty wound.
Why should we be hunted off the land of our forebears? Why should the North of Scotland be a sportsman's paradise for


a few? Why should our population, be continually declining? The hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) said that we have given no evidence of poverty in the Highlands, but there are villages in the Island of Lewis I can name which do not receive a penny of income unless it be from public assistance. There are villages suffering poverty such as the distressed mining areas never knew. The people are in a condition of fear and hopelessness with the roads barred to them, the piers rotting, and the harbours silted up. As to co-operation, why we hardly spend 6d. upon it. Well, that is an exaggeration. We actually spend about £5,000 a year in promoting cooperation. In Hull every winter you are importing and kippering Norwegian herring while our people cannot get their herring on to the market. Cannot we do what lies in our power with very little expenditure—because these people are not begging—to promote co-operation to enable the produce to be marketed and to use what opportunities are within our power to prevent the destruction of a race? I am sure that if the Secretary of State for Scotland will take, even the suggestions offered to him by the hon. Member for Inverness, he will find that there will be no obstruction from this side of the House, and I hope that we shall take united action, as representatives of Scotland, even at the eleventh hour of the last day to stop the depopulation and impoverishment of the northern parts of our country.

10.41 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Elliot): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has just shown that a good deal of gear can be got into a little bulk, and I shall do my best to emulate him in that respect. I think it a pity that more Members did not have the opportunity of contributing to our discussion this evening. Many Members are interested in this subject and many Members have valuable contributions to make. I was particularly interested in the thoughtful speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major NevenSpence), and I think that hon. Members opposite did him an injustice when they

said that he asserted that there was no poverty in the Highlands and Islands.

HON. MEMBERS: He said so!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He said we were begging.

Mr. ELLIOT: I listened carefully to what my hon. and gallant Friend said and he recounted, as he had a perfect right to do, the remarkable conditions in his own constituency. He described how the land was continually being broken in on the hills, and how fresh, sweet pastures were replacing the rough lands, resulting in an increased output of cereals. He showed how the change was reflected in an increased output of livestock, of poultry and eggs and increased prosperity generally, among the people, and he said that that did not look like poverty and distress. I am sure we all envy my hon. and gallant Friend the conditions in his constituency, and it is up to us to learn from him and to learn from areas where the conditions described by other speakers to-night have been subdued. It is true, as he says, that in the past the conditions in Orkney and Shetland were quite as unsatisfactory as those in other parts of the Highlands and Islands. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) shakes his head, but he has only to read the novels of Sir Walter Scott to find a description of agriculture in Orkney and Shetland which depicts a state of affairs as bad as that which exists in parts of the Highlands and Islands to-day.

Mr. LESLIE: Scapa Flow.

Mr. ELLIOT: Scapa Flow did not bring the grass on to the hills in Orkney and Shetland, and what we are talking about is the process of bringing grass on to the hills, and none of us ought to sneer at the work of the folk in Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. LESLIE: I am not sneering.

Mr. ELLIOT: I wish to compliment the hon. and learned Gentleman who has lately been returned by the burgh of Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson), first, upon his fortune in obtaining the luck of the ballot so early in his Parliamentary career, secondly, on his choice of a subject which has interested the House so keenly, and also, if I may say so, upon the felicitous speech in which he introduced that subject, a speech which makes


us all hope that we shall often hear him in our debates in the future. I say this all the more sincerely since, in a previous incarnation long, long ago in Glasgow, he was president of the Students Representative Council, and I had the honour of being his junior colleague as vice-president of that august body.
The difficulties of replying to a Debate so general as that which we have had are considerable. One must say, in the first place, that this is a problem of an area which may properly be described as a special area, at least because of its peculiar physical characteristics. This is a very old area. It is an old problem, a problem of an enormous area of about 9,500,000 acres, with a population of only about 300,000 persons and a rateable value so low that whereas a penny in the pound brings in £291 in Sutherland, it brings in about £2,000 in Midlothian, and £45,000 in Glasgow. It is clear then that that area cannot be in a position to carry through from its own resources, all the extensive amenities and social services which the populations of to-day demand.
It is also true that great efforts have been made by the Central Government to deal with this problem. In 1935–36 there was over £1,500,000 paid in a single year to the Highlands and Islands by way of Government grants, and there was another £1,400,000 going in by way of pensions and unemployment payments. It is wrong to refer to that work as doles. The Highlands and Islands medical service, for instance, is a striking success. The Highlands and Islands medical services involve an expenditure of considerable sums there and also the maintenance of a very much higher standard of medical service than the area could afford for itself; and while it is true that in many cases considerable distances exist over which sick persons have to be brought, it is also true that those distances are being shortened each year, that the hospital services are being improved, and that new hospitals are being built. Grants are being approved of over £50,000 for additional general hospitals in Shetland, Lewis and Orkney, and grants have been made to places like Inverness Infirmary to bring it up to the standard of a full general hospital. There are, of course, other schemes which I have not time to go over to-night.
That is not the end of the story. Reference has been made to our programme of roads in the Northern counties. In the five years preceding 1935–36 grants amounting to £627,984 were made to seven county councils, but the programme for the present is £1,765,000 for Argyll, £126,000 for Caithness, £942,000 for Inverness, £180,000 for Orkney, £351,000 for Ross and Cromarty, £644,000 for Sutherland, and £47,000 for Shetland, with a reserve of £119,000, which comes to a total of £4,250,000, all that to be expended by 100 per cent. grants with no contribution whatever to be asked for from those authorities on account of those sums. And not only so, but the whole of the sums which are saved to these local authorities on the first-class roads by means of that go into the smaller roads, and to meet that expenditure on smaller roads, 50 per cent. grant is made from the State in addition. I think that that indicates that the Government are at any rate bringing forward plans designed to deal with the depopulation and to improve the state of poverty which undoubtedly exists in many parts of the Highlands and Islands. It has been said by the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald) that the programme is rather slow in materialising, but work has already started on that programme, and the expenditure here is over a period of no more than five years, and it is the Government's ambition and intention to carry it through within that time.
As for education, it is known that the Government grant runs from 62 per cent. to as high as 85 per cent. of the total expenditure in the Highlands, compared with a grant of 50 per cent. elsewhere and indeed less than that, as Members for Glasgow very well know. I think one hon. Member made a reference to housing. A considerable amount of work has gone on in housing, and over 6,000 houses have been built by local authorities and by private enterprise with State aid since 1919. Some 3,000 houses have been improved or reconstructed under the Rural Workers' Acts, and the Department of Agriculture has made loans to some 4,000 more persons for the improvement of their houses.
When we speak of distress and the danger of the collapse of the future welfare of a whole community we must be


careful not to form an exaggerated view of the situation. It would be a great disservice to the Highlands themselves if we did so. We must remember that all that work is not without result. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Cassells) referred to the vital statistics of Scotland. It is well worth noting that the vital statistics of the Highlands are very much better than the vital statistics of Scotland as a whole, and, therefore, it must not be taken that the Highlands are decaying. The adjusted death rate in the Highlands is only about four-fifths of the death rate for Scotland as a whole. The sickness rate among the insured population is less as well—only 70 per cent. of that for the country as a whole. Infant mortality in the Highlands and Islands is far below that for the country as a whole, 32 per cent. below. These are not the signs of a dying and decaying race. They are the signs of a race which has undergone and is undergoing hardships and requires that its lot should be improved; but we do no service either to the Highlands or their inhabitants to depict them in a scheme of unrelieved black and gloom.

Mr. JOHNSTON: What about the tuberculosis figures?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have not got them with me, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Highland population is susceptible to tuberculosis. It is not so much in the Highlands as when the Highlander moves into the crowded cities that the rate goes up. We should not consider that no far-reaching schemes have been brought forward for the improvement of the Highlands or that no far-reaching schemes will be brought forward. The tourist industry has been referred to often to-night. I have not time to go into the many suggestions which have been brought forward, some useful, some impracticable. The suggestion that all the lochs should be taken over by the local authorities leaves out of account the fact that many hotels already have fishing rights, and I do not think that the tourist industry would be improved if those rights were taken away from the hotels which have them.
I wish to refer to the great basic industry of the Highlands—agriculturebecause without a flourishing agriculture

all the tourists in the world will not save what we desire to save, the race itself. To have the race engaged in the tourist industry would not result in the Highlands which our forbears knew and they would not be the Highlands which we desire to preserve. In those seven counties the sheep number 2,750,000, or 37 per cent. of the total of sheep in Scotland. The cattle are 210,000, a sixth of the Scottish total. These are more particularly the breeding areas for cattle and sheep. They export to other areas for fattening purposes. Had it not been for the steps taken by the Government to maintain and develop agriculture the Highlands' main industry would already have hopelessly crashed.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) in the absence of his leader, whose illness we were sorry to hear of, made, among some thoughtful suggestions, the extraordinary statement that there was planlessness in the system of agriculture. His ignorance of agriculture may easily be excused, representing as he does a constituency with no great agricultural development. It may well be that he does not know the intricate development of agriculture or the connection of the exporting areas of the north with the fattening areas of the south. He has not the slightest idea of the benefits which the cultivating areas of the east get from the beet sugar subsidy and the wheat subsidy. He has not the slightest idea that they have any connection with the exporting areas which send stock to the south to be fattened. I can assure the hon. Member that it is so, and if he gives a little more attention to the subject he will find that it will well repay his study.
The improvement in agriculture may be seen by the simple fact that in 1932 the price of black-faced sheep, first quality, in Scotland, was 22s. 10d.; in 1933, 24s. 4d.; in 1934, 25s. 6d.; in 1935, 27s. 9d., and in 1936, 28s. 6d. Cheviot lambs have gone up by 10s. per head from 27s. in 1932 to 37s. 5d. in 1936. These are the big facts which one has to remember. The industry of agriculture as a whole is an industry of the greatest interest to the Highlands, but it cannot be maintained unless we are willing to pay the price. Unless the sheep pay, nobody will take over the deer forests and they will extend right down to the Lowlands. The only thing I am sorry for is that when we do bring forward these practical pro-


posals hon. Members opposite vote against them as often as they can. They voted three times against them last night, and every one of the Divisions was shared in by the hon. and learned Member who brought forward this Motion. It is no use for him to say he voted because yesterday's proposal will tax the food of the poorest of the poor, for when we brought in our cattle subsidy proposals, which were entirely subsidised by the Exchequer, his hon. and right hon. Friends voted against them with just as much vehemence as they do now when part of the subsidy is to be raised by an import duty.
We are not, however, content with the state of things as they are. We intend to examine the problem further. The Scottish Development Council, in consultation with the late Secretary of State, set up a Highlands Sub-Committee and that sub-committee is now engaged on its investigations. I hope that it will bring forward far-reaching proposals. They will certainly receive the careful and sympathetic consideration of the Government. The Government which has taken such vigorous and drastic action to maintain the great industry of agriculture upon which the Highlands depend, will not shrink from equally vigorous and drastic action in extending and developing that and other industries if it is so recommended in a well-thought-out plan by the Highlands Sub-Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in view of the widespread and long-continued distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, now involving grave peril of a complete breakdown in the social economy of these areas, this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to formulate without delay proposals designed to arrest depopulation and poverty among the remaining inhabitants and to provide facilities whereby they may earn a decent livelihood.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) ACT (1936) AMENDMENT BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ANGUS EDUCATIONAL TRUST SCHEME.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]

11.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel C. KERR: I wish to raise a question which is of the utmost importance to almost every constituency in Scotland and in particular to the County of Angus, the question of the Angus Educational Trust Scheme under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Acts, 1928 and 1935. I wish to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend that there are certain objections to this scheme, in the hope that after he has heard what I have to say he will try to see that this scheme is not given approval by His Majesty. The five burghs of which I wish to speak are Arbroath, Montrose, Forfar, Brechin and Kirriemuir. The first four I represent and the last is represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw). Over 75 per cent. of the money which is expended under this scheme comes from these five burghs, and all of them are against this scheme, and there is very strong feeling throughout the burghs against it. One of the principal objections is that on page 3 of the scheme, under the heading of bursaries, the commissioners have definitely stated that they see no necessity for the continuance of school bursaries, because adequate provision is made for them by the education authority. They are not quite consistent in regard to this, because they have permitted school bursaries in the Morgan Trust, Dundee, and I think, also, in the Peter Brough Trust, Paisley; and again in the County of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire


school bursaries are allowed to be supplementary to the education authorities' bursary schemes and are permitted irrespective of the parents' means or circumstances. Naturally, these burghs want to know why this concession is not given to them in regard to children of the poorest people, and there is no doubt that if the concession is not to be given it will be dead against the wishes of the founders of these trusts.
Now I come to the question of committees. The commissioners say they are going to widen the discretion in the use of funds exercised by these local committees and governing bodies, and yet they refuse discretion in the matter of school bursaries. Surely that is not widening but curtailing the power of the committees to deal with this question. The local committees have no power whatever to serve the interests of the locality. They have become the creatures of the governing body, with the result that the right type of member will not act on these committees, which are merely ancillary to the governing body. Unless the local committees are given full administration of area funds, their existence seems to be futile.
On the question of funds, I would read out a statement which is on page 4 of the scheme:
If the governing body is satisfied that such expenditure can usefully be incurred.
Those words are very ominous. The intentions of the donors are in grave peril here. Let us take the Arbroath Louson Trust, which has been administered for a good many years, like many-other trusts, by the provosts and municipal councillors of the various burghs. On page 20 of the scheme we find that money is to be expended on two items of travelling expenses and time lost for the governing body and the local committees.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am sorry to say that I did not hear the opening words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he referred, as I understand, to a scheme or to an Order which, I take it, is laid on the Table of the House. If that is so, the proper course for the hon. and gallant Member, if he wishes to oppose that Order being made, is to put a notice on

the Order Paper for what is commonly known as a. Prayer against the sanctioning of the scheme or the Order. Otherwise, he is at present adopting a course upon which there can be no Division and no decision about the matter, and he is perhaps anticipating the usual and proper course being taken by some other hon. Member for dealing with a Paper which is laid on the Table of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I am afraid, then, that I have been mis-instructed. I did ask what the right procedure was, and I was told it was not necessary to put down anything. This matter is a question of time, and if I cannot raise this question here and put in some objection before, ipso facto, it becomes law two months after 4th November, I shall be in a very difficult position if I am now out of Order.

Mr. ELLIOT: Further to that point of Order. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend merely wishes to raise this matter. He does not want to go to the full formal length of putting down a, Prayer. I submit in the circumstances that it is quite open to him to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment without desiring, in view of the great stress under which we have all been working recently, to force the House to a Division thereon. I understand that he does not wish to raise his right to challenge a Division, but merely to bring the matter up on the Adjournment of the House for the consideration of the Government.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to that rather depends upon another matter with which I am not fully acquainted at the moment. Do I understand rightly that the time for a Prayer against this Motion will expire before the House meets again?

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: Yes, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If that is so, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not be anticipating a Prayer by another hon. Member. It would be too late now to put down a Prayer. I think that perhaps, after what has been said, the hon. and gallant Member will observe that, if it had still been possible to put a Prayer on the Order Paper to be heard after the House meets again, there would be an opportunity of raising the matter


in that way, and therefore it would not be right for him to interfere with the opportunity of another Member who might wish to put down a Prayer in that way. In the circumstances, I think the hon. and gallant Member might proceed.

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: I am most grateful to you for your Ruling. As far as I can see, there can be only two justifications for this scheme. The first is that there has been maladministration on the part of the present trustees; and, from what I personally know of this subject, I am quite certain that this cannot be substantiated. The other would be the cessation of the objects of the donor. Can it be substantiated that that has become a fact? I am quite certain, from what I know, that neither of these contentions can be substantiated. My right hon. Friend knows how very keenly the Scottish people feel on education. Here are these funds, which have been carefully guarded and administered in the best spirit for the benefit of the children in these burghs, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to suspend the completion of this legislation and have the scheme further looked into and amended.

11.12 p.m.

Captain W. T. SHAW: I wish to support my hon. and gallant Friend's plea to the Secretary of State that he should withhold his approval of this Angus Educational Trust Scheme until he has had further opportunities of considering it and amending it in conformity with the needs and requirements of the local conditions. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, almost every other Member on the Front Government Bench, and, indeed, almost every Member of the House, have during the last few months expressed the view that it was essential to do everything we could to uphold the democratic principle of government in this country. If we are to do that, we must have regard, not merely to the opinions of Members of this House, but also to the opinions of local government bodies in their sphere. As my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, we have here a scheme which is objected to, as regards many of its principal provisions, by all the representative educational bodies in the area affected by the scheme, and I

feel that we may appeal with some confidence to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give this matter further consideration, and to pay particular regard to the local feeling and requirements in this matter. No doubt the commission is composed of very able men, but none of them can be familiar with the conditions of the county of Angus. It is laid down, I think in paragraph 33, that the Scottish Education Department, the governing body and its local committees are to operate the scheme.
Naturally, the Scottish Education Department have the final word. It is the same old thing. The bureaucracy want to keep all the power and patronage they can. We have had sufficient experience in local affairs to know that we have too much centralisation already. It is essential that more regard should be had to local needs. Where these funds have been administered locally, they have been administered efficiently and it has cost nothing. Under this scheme the governing body will get certain expenses paid to them. In many of the rural parishes which I represent, if the scheme goes through, the children, and the poorest children, are to be defrauded of their birthright because they will not be able to get these bursaries. It is one thing to get a bursary in a very large area but another thing to compete for a bursary where the competitors are confined to the local parish. The donors of these funds meant to restrict the competition to the people in the parishes.
With regard to the advisory committees, the people of Angus are very independent and self-reliant. Angus is capable of producing men and women able to fill any station in the land, from the queen upon the throne downward. The motto of the county is "Trust to Angus," and they have shown that the trust is not misplaced. I doubt whether there is a county in the whole of Scotland which has given my right hon. Friend so little trouble as Angus. They are well able to manage their own affairs, but they are not given to verbosity. You will not get them to serve on these advisory committees unless there is some executive function attached to them. Even if you gave them the executive function of delaying the proposals of the


governing body, it would be something. In 1918 we passed the Scottish Education Act, under which advisory committees were to be set up, but there has never been an advisory committee set up in Angus. The people will not waste their time in that way. If my right hon. Friend looks over the scheme carefully, he will see that it is essential that it should be amended in many respects to meet local needs and requirements.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am indebted to the hon. Members who have raised this matter on the last Parliamentary occasion on which it would be possible to challenge this scheme. It is true, of course, that raising it on the Adjournment has not the effect of a Prayer, nor indeed would it be constitutional for me to offer on my own motion to withdraw or amend the scheme, but I will examine it carefully in the light of the representations that have been made. Though it is possible for any objector to bring forward an amended scheme and also possible for the Department to bring forward an amended scheme on our own initiative and motion, it would be necessary now for the present scheme to come into effect. I will, however, give my most personal consideration to it, and, if necessary, see that amendments are made. It is necessary to remember that when the House passed the Statute setting up this commission and enabling alterations to be made and brought forward by these schemes, the House intended that that should be done. It was merely regularising the process which has already gone on even in the case of these old endowments.

Captain SHAW: We are bound by the Parliament of 1928.

Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Parliament gave an Instruction which, until it is withdrawn, I, as executive Minister, must attend to. I have no power to disregard the Act of Parliament, and until this House gives me further orders, I am the executive officer who must administer the Statute. No fewer than 37 of these endowments have been altered and interfered with, either through the action of the commissioners or through the Court of Session. In 37 cases the intentions of the donors have been modified by the subsequent action of persons authorised by this House under Statute.
There is this further point. Have the intentions of the donors in fact been frustrated by the scheme under consideration? I believe not. The Commissioners are bound by the Act to have special regard to the spirit of the intention of the founders of the endowments. They have had such special regard in this case. They have altered the purposes to which the endowment money is to be applied only where they are satisfied that the purpose for which the money was formerly used did not confer on the recipients an educational benefit which they would not otherwise obtain. Let me take the single point of whether the bursary money should be entrenched upon for capital and administrative expenses. In the case of the Louson bursary, which was specially mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Kerr), I am able to tell the hon. Member that the bursary will remain unaltered and that no deduction whatever will be made for the cost of administration. These endowments have not been administered absolutely without any administrative expenses in the past. I understand that in the case of some of the bursaries administrative expense have ranged from 10 per cent. of the gross income to as high as 13 per cent. I do not say there has been extravagance or anything in the way of dereliction of duty, but I merely indicate that in making provision for certain administrative expenses to be charged against the endowment money that no inroad has occurred upon the fund. It was previously carried on in perfectly good faith and with satisfactory administrative results.
I have only a short time, and I do not know whether it would be possible for me to sketch very briefly the position with regard to bursaries. I would remind the House that when the Educational Endowments Act, 1935, was being considered, the House of Commons declined to regard the position of school bursaries as a proper object for the application of the Endowment Fund. Mr. Skelton said on this question:
The provision of adequate secondary education and an opportunity for making use of it is one of the primary duties of an education authority.
He also argued that Parliament should do something for post-school bursaries rather than drag in secondary


schools, because, he said, in secondary schools the responsibility of the education authority is greatest. The Angus authority very properly realised its responsibilities there and it makes payments of £4,000 a year in bursaries of exactly the kind which we are modifying under the present scheme. Reference has been made to one or two other cases where bursaries have been left. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned Renfrew-shire as one of the cases in point. It is true that the Renfrewshire Educational Trust scheme provides for bursaries, but these are competitive bursaries. Therefore, the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw), does not apply because bursaries which are open to competition are as likely to be won by the sons of well-to-do parents as by the sons of poor parents.
Reference has been made to local committees. I think it is desirable that these local committees should be set up and should function. Of course, the central body which is to be set up is the responsible body, and we must trust it. I hope that the burning independence of the people of Angus will not go so far as to induce them to refuse to set up these committees or to serve upon them when they are set up. The governing body may devolve its functions to local committees, and it is reasonable to suppose that they will be properly administered. There is a way here by which the bur-

saries will be preserved for the areas for which they were originally given and I think that local committees are very proper bodies to see that these things are properly administered.
It is true that the responsibility on them is not perhaps great, but an advisory function in these days is one which people can well exercise without feeling that they are being asked merely to beat the air. I am taking up my duty as Secretary of State for Scotland for the first time. I have heard echoes in my other capacities as Minister of Agriculture and as a Scottish Member of tumultuous affairs which have arisen from the activities of the commission. I believe that there is no body of equal size which has had so many stormy passages as this commission and its schemes. Therefore while we all trust the commission, I will keep this matter, which is the first one brought to my notice as Secretary of State, under my personal consideration and full statutory opportunity will arise for the submission of an amended scheme, either at the instance of objectors or by myself if we see that it is going wrong. With that assurance I hope that my hon. Friends will not feel that their time has been wasted by raising this matter to-night.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.